533 

75 

21 

py 1 HOW THE LAND-GRANT COLLEGES ARE 

PREPARING SPECIAL TEACHERS 
OF AGRICULTURE 



BY 

ASHLEY V. STORM, PH. D. 



GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION 

NUMBER FIVE 







PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 

GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS 

NASHVILLE, TENN 



Submitted in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the 

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

in the Graduate School of Education of 

George Peabody College for Teachers 



HOW THE LAND-GRANT COLLEGES ARE 

PREPARING SPECIAL TEACHERS 

OF AGRICULTURE 



BY 

ASHLEY V. STORM, PH. D. 



GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION 

NUMBER FIVE 







PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 

GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS 

NASHVILLE, TENN 



a 



5"~i --J 









TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Page 

Introduction 7 

Purpose 7 

Scope 7 

Data 8 

Sources o 

Reliability 9 

Probability of Error 9 

Methods of Study 9 

Historical 9 

Current Conditions 9 

CHAPTER I. 

ORIGIN AND DEVP:L0PMENT OF THE LAND-GRANT COL- 
LEGES 11 

State Activities 11 

Federal Activities 12 

First Morrill Act 13 

Hatch Act 14 

Second Morrill Act 14 

Adams Act 15 

Nelson Amendment 15 

Smith-Lever Act 15 

Smith-Hughes Act 16 

Magnitude of Land-Grant Colleges — Statistics 17 

Classification of Land-Grant Colleges 18 

Evolution of Teacher Training in Land-Grant Colleges 18 

Conclusions 26 

CHAPTER H. 

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRAINING OF SPECIAL 
TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURE IN THE LAND-GRANT 

COLLEGES . n 

Section 1. THE FACTS 27 

Where the Administration Is Organized and Who Administers 28 

Separate Departments 29 

Departments Not Separate 29 

Approval of Specified Required Curriculum 30 

Choice of Curriculum by Head of Teacher Training 31 

Approval of Preparation of Prospective Teacher 31 

Section 2. THE INTERPRETATION ^1 

Separate Departments 2)2 

Name of Department y:s 

In What College y^^ 

Nearness to President 34 

Control of Curriculum and Recommendation for Completion__ 35 

Api)roval of Preparation ^7 

Section 3. THE CONCLUSION 38 



4 Table of ContcmU 

CHAPTER HI. 

Page 
IN WHAT COLLEGES OF THE LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS 
THE PROSPECTIVE SPECIAL TEACHER OF AGRICUL- 
TURE OBTAINS HIS EDUCATION AND THE QUALIFICA- 
TIONS AND RANK OF THOSE WHO TEACH HIM 40 

Section 1. THE FACTS 40 

Di.stril)ution of His Work Among Colleges 40 

Agricultural Faculty 41 

Education Faculty 42 

Professorial Rank 44 

Section 2. THE INTERPRETATION 46 

Where He Is Taught 47 

The Agriculture l-^aculty 48 

The lulucation Facult>' 49 

Degree Curnparison (if Faculties 49 

Preparation and Experience of Education Faculty 49 

Professorial Rank 53 

Section o. THE CONCLUSIONS 54 

CHAPTl^K l\'. 

SPECIAL l^TNESS Rh:oUIREl) l'"()K ENThlRlNC; UPON COL- 
LEGIATE PREPARATION AS A SPECIAL TEACHER OF 

AGRICULTURE 56 

Section L THE FACTS 56 

General Entrance Requirements 56 

Changes in Entrance Requirements 59 

Comparison of [Entrance Requirements 59 

When Differentiatitin Begins 59 

Evidenci' of Special I'itness 60 

Section 2. THE INTIiRPRETATiON 60 

Entrance Requirements 60 

Differences in Entrance Requirements 62 

Differentiation of Curriculum 63 

Evidence of Sjiecial I'itness 63 

Section 3. THE CONCLUSIONS 64 

CHAPTEIv^ V. 

WHAT THE LROSPECTIVE SPECIAL TEACHER Oh^ AGRI- 
CULTURE STUDIES 66 

Section 1. THE FACTS 66 

Specified Required Curriculum 66 

What This Curriculum Contains 66 

Agriculture Distribution 68 

Education Distrihnticui 69 

Sectiou 2. THE INTERPRETATION 70 

The Sjiecilied Recpiired Curriculum 70 

Curriculum Distribution 7^ 

Distribution of Agriculture 74 

Distribution of Education 76 

Section 3. THE CONCLUSIONS 79 



Table of Contents 5 

CHAPTER VL 

Page 

THE PRACTICE TEACHING WORK OF THE PROSPECTIVE 
TEACHER OF AGRICULTURE 81 

Section 1. THE FACTS 81 

Where Practice Teaching Is Done 81 

Who Does the Practice Teaching 82 

Amount and Kind Required 84 

Prerequisites for Undertaking 85 

Who Sanctions Undertaking 88 

Who Acts as Critic 89 

Wlioni Practice Teacher Teaches 91 

Does He Teach Agriculture 92 

What Agriculture Does He Teach 92 

How Many Agricultural Subjects Must He Teacli 92 

Who Decides the Subjects to Be Taught 93 

Determination of General Content Taught 93 

Determination of Content of Day's Lesson 93 

Who Makes the Lesson Plans 93 

Kinds of Conferences on Practice Teaching 94 

Section 2. THE INTERPRETATION -94 

Kinds of Schools for Practice Teaching 94 

Nuniijer of Kinds of Schools Used 95 

Who Does Practice Teaching 95 

Variations in Practice Teaching for Experienced 96 

Amount of Practice Teaching and Observation 96 

Kinds of Teaching Observed 97 

Prerequisites for Practice Teaching 97 

From What Classes Practice Teachers Come 97 

Sanctioning Entering Upon Practice 98 

The Critic Teacher 98 

NumlK-r Critic Teachers 99 

What the Critics Do 99 

Observing and Practice Teacliing Classes 100 

What He Teaches 100 

What Agriculture He Teaches 100 

Number of Subjects He Teaches 101 

Who Chooses the Subject Taught 102 

Content of the Day's Lesson 102 

Lesson Plan Making 102 

Watching and Criticizing the Practice Teacher 103 

Conferences on Practice Teaching 103 

Specific Plans of Certain Institutions 104 

California 104 

Georgia 104 

Massachusetts 104 

Minnesota 104 

New York 105 

North Carolina ' 107 

Ohio 107 

\'ermont 108 

Section 3. THE CONCLUSIONS 108 



6 Table of Contents 

CHAPTER VII. 

Pagf 

TRAINL\G TEACHERS WHILE IN SERVICE HI 

Section 1. THE FACTS HI 

Wlio 1'rains tlie Teacher in Service H2 

How Those Who Train Cooperate Wl 

Special Teacliers in Service in a State Wlierein Tlie\- Were 

Not Trained H3 

The Trainers of Those from Otlier States H3 

Instructors' Visits to Teacher in Service Ho 

How Often Visits Made 113 

Length of Visits 114 

Character of Help Given 114 

Instructor's Reports of His Training Visits 115 

How Often Reports of Visits Made 115 

To W'hom Trainer Reports 115 

Nature of Reports 115 

Reports of Teacher to Training Instructor IK) 

Frequency of Teacher's Repcirts 11() 

Principal Feature of Teacher's Reports llO 

Correspondence Courses for Training in Service 117 

Reading Courses for Training in Service 117 

How Reading Courses Are Used 117 

Conferences Used for Training in Service 117 

Teachers in Service Visiting Other Schools 118 

How Visits Are Made 118 

Teachers in Service Attending College 119 

How Long Attend College 11') 

What Time of Year Attend College 119 

Section 2. THE INTERPRETATION 119 

Who Trains the Teacher in Service 119 

Cooperation in Training in Service 120 

Training by Visits 120 

Character of Help Given 121 

Instructors' Reports of Visits 122 

Reports of Teacher to Instructor 123 

Conferences for Training in Service 123 

Teachers V^isiting Other Schools 124 

Teachers in Service Attending College 124 

Section 3. THE CONCLUSIONS 125 

CH/\PTEK VIII. 

DISCUSSION OF CONCLUSIONS 128 

l'>ihliograi)hy 135 



INTRODUCTION 
Purpose 

During the recent past there has developed an increased 
general interest in agriculture. In the early years of the 
period of most marked increase in this interest a demand 
arose for the teaching of agriculture in the elementary and 
secondary schools. This was quickly followed by a demand 
that agriculture be made a department of instruction in the 
secondary schools, and that the teacher of this subject be 
specially trained for the distinct duty of teaching agricul- 
ture. Meanwhile the popularity of agricultural extension 
work had been developed. 

It was soon seen that this new type of teacher must be 
equipped to teach agriculture as a specialty, to adapt this 
teaching to a full four-year course in the secondary school, 
and also to teach in the rural school and in the elementary 
grades of the town or city school, and, in addition, to per- 
form the functions of an extension worker for that portion 
of the community not in attendance upon school. 

The need of a teacher so specifically and yet so broadly 
trained immediately raised the question of the need of a 
suitable institution in which to train him. 

The adaptability of the normal school to the giving of 
an elementary knowledge of agriculture to those teachers 
whose major work is the teaching of other subjects has 
been shown (National Education Association Proceedings, 
1913, pp. 516-21), but the training of a specialist in agri- 
culture who is to teach that subject almost exclusively re- 
quires a different type of institution. 

A people who had become accustomed to depending upon 
the land-grant colleges for their needs regarding agriculture 
naturally looked to those institutions for this new type of 
teacher. 

The land-grant colleges, with their innumerable and vital 
points of public contact and with a well-developed policy, 
not only of sensing the public wishes, but of responding to 
them, evolved steadily, but quite rapidly, facilities for train- 
ing these special teachers of agriculture. 

To learn how these institutions as a class are perform- 
ing this function is the purpose of this study. 

Scope 

This study is limited to the land-grant colleges, frequently 
called "agricultural and mechanical colleges" or^ "colleges 
of agriculture and mechanic arts," established by the Fed- 
eral Land Grant of 1862 and subsequent statutes. 



8 Iiitroductioii 

It is further limited to those colleges of this class which 
are devoted to whites and are located in continental United 
States — one only in each state. 

It is still further limited to their plans and practices in 
the training of special teachers of agriculture, save where 
some other feature of their affairs is included in order to 
better understand their work in the field under investiga- 
tion. 

No attempt is made to deal with the student body quanti- 
tatively — first, because, it is not necessary to the proper 
pursuit of this study, and, second, because the abnormal 
conditions regarding student numbers due to war would 
make conclusions based upon such data practically valueless. 

Data 

Sources. — The sources of information were certain his- 
torical authorities from which were gathered the data re- 
garding the origin and evolution of the land-grant colleges; 
certain current authorities regarding colleges, schools, and 
teacher training; and recent direct information from the 
land-grant colleges themselves. The information from 
these institutions was obtained from catalogs, bulletins, cir- 
culars, correspondence, and a questionary. 

This questionary, which consisted of a set of questions 
providing for a possible 265 items of reply from each land- 
grant college, was sent to the person responsible for the 
training of special teachers of agriculture in the land-grant 
college for whites in each of the forty-eight states. Forty- 
four of these states — viz., Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Cal- 
ifornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illi- 
nois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missis- 
sippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Car- 
olina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, 
Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — re- 
sponded by returning the questionary more or less com- 
pletely filled according to the conditions prevailing at that 
institution. 

The men from these states who replied to this rather ex- 
tended questionary were an essential factor in making this 
study. Without the recent, definite, and dependable facts 
furnished by them about their several institutions, this 
study could not well have been made, or, if attemuted. 



Introduction 9 

would have been almost devoid of whatever value it may 
now possess. 

One state (Nevada) expressed a willingness to assist in 
the study, but indicated that the small number of high 
schools studying agriculture in that state made it possible 
to obtain teachers trained in other states, and the training 
of this type of teachers had not progressed sufficiently in 
that state to warrant attempting to fill the questionary. 

Delaware, New Hampshire, and Washington furnished no 
questionary replies. 

Reliahilitij. — Many of the sources are government publi- 
cations, and for that reason may be assumed to be unbiased 
and dependable. The questionary replies and the personal 
letters are from persons very familiar with the subject- 
matter and skilled in questionary processes. The results 
are, for these reasons, worthy of confidence. 

ProbahiUty of Error. — Since the facts relate only to the 
land-grant colleges for whites in continental United States 
and since questionary replies were received from 91 2-3 
per cent of these institutions, the probability of error due 
to insufficient or poorly selected data is very small. The 
probability of error due to lack of ability of those report- 
ing to properly interpret the significance of the questionary 
is very small, because of their good general education, as 
well as of their superior technical knowledge of the topics 
of the questionary. 

While the small number of instances involved might be 
thought to be a source of error, the small total possible num- 
ber of instances due to the maximum number of land-grant 
colleges being only forty-eight makes this less serious than 
might at first appear. 

Methods of Study 

Historical. — Those portions dealing with the historical 
features were investigated in the usual way through library 
research. 

Current Coiiditions. — The study of the current practices 
in the land-grant colleges regarding their work of prepar- 
ing special teachers of agriculture was mainly through the 
questionary before mentioned, supplemented by correspond- 
ence and by personal visits to some of the land-grant col- 
leges. The questionary replies were placed in reference 
tables, twenty-three in number, in which the states are ar- 
ranged alphabetically, and the facts from the various states 
reporting are classified and placed in 220 columns according 
to content. A copy of the questionary and of the alphabetic 
reference tables will be found on file in the librarv of Pea- 



10 hitroductk)}) 

body College, Nashville, Tenn., and in the University Farm 
Library, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, where they are 
available for public consultation. 

All data used from the questionary and the reference ta- 
bles will be found in distribution tables or other tables in 
Section" 1 of Chapters II to VII, inclusive, of this disserta- 
tion. 

Organization of Topics 

So far as possible, the chronological sequence is followed 
in Chapter I. The treatment of current conditions is that 
of first devoting one of each of Chapters II to VII to a 
major phase of teacher training and then dividing each 
chapter into three sections, of which Section 1 deals with the 
facts ; Section 2, the interpretations ; and Section 3, the con- 
clusions regarding that major phase. As is more fully 
shown in the Table of Contents, the major phases are Ad- 
ministration, the Faculty, Entrance, Studies, Practice 
Teaching, Training in Service. Chapter VIII contains the 
general discussion. 



CHAPTER I 

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND-GRANT 
COLLEGES 

In considering what the land-grant colleges are doing in 
the preparation of special teachers of agriculture, it may 
be pertinent to ask the following questions — viz. : What are 
the land-grant colleges? Is there in their origin and his- 
tory that which especially fits them to bear the great respon- 
sibility of preparing special teachers of agriculture? 

To answer these questions, the following brief account 
is given of their statutory origin and development, their 
geographical distribution within continental United States, 
and specific events showing their activities in connection 
with the training of teachers during the recent period in 
which there has been a demand for the teaching of agricul- 
ture in schools of elementary and secondary grade: 

Their Origin in State and Federal Statutes 

The land-grant colleges originated in an Act, since called 
the "First Morrill Act," passed by the United States Con- 
gress and signed by President Lincoln, July 2, 1862. (F. W. 
Blackmar, "History of Federal Aid to Higher Education in 
the United States.") The passage of the Act had been pre- 
ceded by many attempts to establish, through philanthropic 
or local or state efforts, colleges and schools for teaching 
agriculture and the mechanic arts. These attempts were 
the outgrowth of the developing protest against the classical 
character of the education of the period covered by the late 
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and were fur- 
thered by the many societies organized to foster interest in 
agriculture. (I. L. Kandel, "Federal Aid for Vocational 
Education.") 

State Actirities. — The states preceded the federal gov- 
ernment in this movement to establish educational institu- 
tions for agriculture and the mechanic arts. Even as early 
, as 1823 a bill was introduced in the New York Legislature 
to establish a school of agriculture. (Ibid.) 

In 1849 the Michigan Legislature instructed its "dele- 
gation in Congress to use all honorable means to procure a 
donation of 350,000 acres of land for the establishment of 
agricultural schools in the state." (Dick J. Crosby, "Prog- 
ress in Agricultural Education," 1909.) The State Consti- 
tution, adopted in 1850, required that "the legislature shall 
provide for the establishment of an agricultural school for 
agriculture and the natural sciences connected therewith." 



12 TJw P)-epa rat 10)1 of 

The college was established in 1855 and opened for stu- 
dents in 1857. (A. C. True, "Progress in Agricultural Ed- 
ucation," 1905.) The state accepted the provision of the 
land grant in February, 1863. (United States Bureau of 
Education, 1918, No. 13.) 

In Pennsylvania the State Legislature granted a charter 
in 1855 for "the Farmers' High School," which was not 
opened for students until 1859. It began work as a land- 
grant college in 1864. (United States Bureau of Educa- 
tion, 1918, No. 13.) 

The Maryland Agricultural College was chartered as a 
private corporation in 1856, the corner stone was laid in 
1858, and it was opened for students in 1859. (Dick J. 
Crosby, Report Office Experiment Stations, 1906.) The 
institution did not come under the full control of the state 
until 1914. (United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 
1918, No. 13.) 

The Massachusetts School of Agriculture was incorpo- 
rated in 1856, but was not practically established until the 
passage of the First Morrill Act of 1862, when the State 
Legislature designated the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 
nology, in Boston, to receive the federal grant for instruc- 
tion in the mechanic arts, and the agricultural college at 
Amherst for that in agriculture. The latter institution has 
the distinction of being the only land-grant college devoted 
to agriculture and )iot to the mechanic arts. 

"To Michigan, therefore, belongs the honor of having 
been the first of the states to put in actual operation an ed- 
ucational institution for the direct promotion of technical 
training in agriculture." (United States Department of 
Agriculture Year Book, 1894, p. 91.) 

Fedei'al Actirities. — While local sentiment was develop- 
ing into state action, proposals were not lacking for federal 
participation in the education of the people in agriculture. 
Among other efforts, much influence was exerted to have 
the James Smithson bequest* to the United States (1835) 
devoted to the establishment of a school to contain "a pro- 
fessor of agriculture, a normal department, a professor of 
common-school instruction, and such other professors, 
chiefly of the more useful sciences and arts, etc." (I. L. 
Kandel, "Federal Aid for Vocational Education.") 

While many were memorializing Congress to aid the 
cause of agriculture in one way or another. Prof. Jonathan 
B. Turner, of Illinois College, seems to be the first person 
to publicly propose a plan for an industrial university, 
which approximated the plan finally incorporated into the 

'''Later used to establish the Smithsimiaii Institute. 



Teachers of Agriculture 13 

Acts of Congress creating- the land-grant colleges. Mr. 
Turner made his proposal in 1851. 

Mr. Justin S. Morrill, a member of the United States 
Congress from Vermont, introduced his first bill in Decem- 
ber, 1857. After experiencing the usual vicissitudes of so 
new a measure, the bill was vetoed by President Buchanan. 
Mr. Morrill introduced another bill in December, 1861. In 
June. 1862, this passed the Senate by a vote of 32 to 7 and 
the House by 90 to 25, and twelve days later was signed by 
the President. (Ibid.) 

The Morrill Act (July 2, 1862).— The vital provisions of 
this federal statute are easily epitomized. Each state was 
granted 30,000 acres of land for each Senator and Represen- 
tative in Congress to which it was entitled by the census of 
1860 for the purpose of endowing ''at least one college 
where the leading object shall be, without excluding other 
scientific and classical studies and including military tac- 
tics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to 
agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the 
legislatures of the states may respectively prescribe, in or- 
der to promote the liberal and practical education of the i"n- 
dustrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of 
life." 

If any state had not enough public land within its borders 
to furnish its allotment, land scrip should be issued for the 
deficit. This the state could sell and the purchaser could 
use to locate land in other states. The land or scrip was to 
be sold by the state and the proceeds to constitute a per- 
manent fund, the income of which was to be used for sup- 
porting the college. None of the money could be used for 
"the purchase, erection, preservation, or repair of any 
building or buildings," though 10 per cent could be used 
for sites or experimental farms. The state must replace 
any impairment of the funds. To become operative in any 
state required acceptance by the state within two years and 
establishment of the college within five years. 

''No state while in a condition of rebellion or insurrec- 
tion against the government of the United States shall be 
entitled to the benefit of thfs Act." It was required that an 
annual report be sent by each college to the federal govern- 
ment and to each of the other colleges. (No. 12, Statutes 
at Large, p. 503.) 

The amendment of 1864 extended the time for the ac- 
ceptance by the states that had not yet accepted and spe- 
cifically extended the benefits to West Virginia. 

The amendment of 1866, by again extending the time for 
acceptance and fulfillment of conditions, made possible the 



14 The Prepamtlon of 

obtaining' of the benefits by the states formerly in rebellion, 
and also made provision for states subsequently admitted 
to participate on the same basis as those originally included 
in its provisions. 

The amendment of 1883 relates to the details of financial 
requirements. (See Statutes.) 

The Hatch Act.—lw 1887 Congress passed the Hatch Act, 
"to establish experiment stations in connection with the col- 
leges established in the several states under the provisions 
of" the First Morrill Act "and Acts supplementary thereto." 
The purpose of establishment is declared to be "to aid in 
acquiring and diffusing among the people of the United 
States useful and practical information on subjects con- 
nected with agriculture and to promote scientific investiga- 
tion and experiment respecting the principles and applica- 
tions of agricultural science." 

These stations must be "under the direction of the col- 
lege or colleges in each state or territory established or here- 
after to be established in accordance with the provisions 
of" the First Morrill Act and Acts suplementary thereto. 

A report of operations and finances must be made annu- 
ally to the governor of the state and to the United States 
Department of Agriculture. 

Bulletins must be issued at least quarterly, and must be 
sent to each newspaper in the state and to each person ac- 
tually engaged in farming who makes request for the same. 
Such bulletins are sent postage free. Each state is to re- 
ceive $15,000 annually, paid quarterly in advance. Of this, 
not more than 15 per cent of the first year and not more 
than 5 per cent of any subsequent year may be spent for a 
building or buildings. Each state must formally accept 
the provisions before it becomes entitled to participation in 
the benefits of the Act. (United States Bureau of Educa- 
tion Commissioner's Report, 1902, Vol. I, p. 34.) 

The Second Morrill Acf.— This was passed in 1890 for 
the purpose of adding to the present grant of land of the 
First Morrill Act federal moneys "for the more complete 
endowment and maintenance of colleges for the benefit of 
agriculture and the mechanic arts" established under the 
First Morrill Act and Acts subsequent thereto. 

An annual federal appropriation to each state (main- 
taining such a college or colleges) of $15,000 for the year 
ending June 30, 1890, and an annual increase of $1,000 
each year over the preceding year for ten years and $25,- 
000 annually thereafter, is made, provided no distinction 
of race or coloi* be made in the admission of students. 



Teachers of Agriculture 15 

though separate colleges for colored students may be es- 
tablished, provided the funds be equitably divided. 

The moneys must be used for "instruction in agriculture, 
the mechanic arts, the English language, and the various 
branches of mathematic, physcial, natural, and economic 
science, with special reference to their application in the 
industries of life and to the facilities for such instruction." 

Annual reports are required to be sent to the Secretary 
of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and to each 
land-grant college. (No. 26, Statutes at Large, p. 417; also 
United States Bureau of Education Commissioner's Re- 
port, 1902, Vol. I, p. 4.) 

The Adams Act. — This Act, passed in 1906, adds to the 
annual appropriation of the Hatch Act $5,000 for the year 
ending June 30, 1906, and an increase of $2,000 per year 
over each succeeding year for a period of five years, so the 
total amount thereafter shall be $30,000 annually to each 
state maintaining an experiment station under the provi- 
sions of the Hatch Act. These funds are "to be applied only 
to paying the necessary expenses for conducting original 
researches or experiments bearing directly on the agricul- 
tural industry of the United States." (United States Bu- 
reau of Education Commissioner's Report, 1906, Vol. II, p. 
1240.) 

The Nelson. Ainendment. — This amendment to the appro- 
priation bill for the Department of Agriculture, approved 
March 4, 1907, providing further aid to the colleges of ag- 
riculture and mechanic arts established and conducted un- 
der the First and Second Morrill Acts, states "that colleges 
may use a portion of this money for providing courses for 
the special preparation of instructors for teaching the ele- 
ments of agriculture and mechanic arts." The bill of 
which this amendment was a part increavSed the appropri- 
ations of the Second Morrill Act by $5,000 for the year end- 
ing June 30, 1908, and an additional $5,000 per year there- 
after over the amount of the preceding year until the total 
amount to be appropriated annually under this Act and the 
Second Morrill Act is $50,000 to each state. (United 
States Bureau of Education Commissioner's Report, 1907, 
Vol. II, p. 869.) 

The Smith-Lever Act. — This Act, to provide for cooper- 
ative agricultural extension work between the United 
States and the agricultural colleges of the states receiving 
the benefits of the First Morrill Act and Acts supplementary 
thereto, was passed by Congress and approved May 8, 1914. 

The purpose was to give instruction and practical dem- 
onstrations in agriculture and home economics to persons 



16 The Preparation of 

not attending or resident in colleges, the manner of work 
to "be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture and the State Agricultural College." 

Appropriations were made of $480,000 the first year, 
$10,000 to each state; after that, $600,000 for the first year 
and a sum exceeding by $500,000 the amount of the preced- 
ing year for seven years; thereafter, $4,100,000 in addition 
to the original $480,000 (or $4,580,000), each state partici- 
pating in the $4,100,000 in the ratio which its rural popu- 
lation bears to the total rural population of the United 
States. No money shall be used for buildings, lands, 
college-course teaching, lectures in colleges, or for agricul- 
tural trains, and only 5 per cent shall be applied to print- 
ing and distribution of publications. Each state must ex- 
pend one dollar of its own money in addition to each dollar 
of federal funds received above the $10,000 original appor- 
tionment. 

Each state must report annually to the Secretary of Ag- 
riculture, and he to Congress ; and each state must reim- 
burse the federal government for any federal money lost or 
misapplied. 

The SmitJi-H/ighey. Aef. — This Act, passed by the United 
States Congress and approved February 23, 1917, provides 
for cooperating with the states in the promotion of voca- 
tional education and the preparation of teachers therefor 
by appropriating, for cooperating with the states in pay- 
ing salaries of teachers, supervisors, and directors of su- 
pervisors of agriculture, $500,000 for the year ending June 
30, 1918, and increasing until the year 1926, when it shall 
be $3,000,000, this amount to be appropriated annually 
thereafter, the money to be apportioned among the states 
in the proportion of the state's rural population to the 
United States rural population, not including outlying pos- 
sessions, with a certain minimum allotment to each state ; 
by appropriating, for cooperating in preparing teachers of 
agriculture, trade, and industrial subjects and home eco- 
nomics, $500,000 for the year ending June 30, 1918, and 
increasing till the year June 30, 1921, when it shall be 
$1,000,000, and continue at that amount annually there- 
after, the money to be apportioned to each state in the ratio 
which its total population bears to the total population of 
the United States, with a minimum amount for each state. 

A Federal Board for Vocational Education is created, 
consisting of the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of 
Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Commissioner of Education, 
and three citizens appointed by the President — one to rep- 
resent agriculture ; one, labor ; and one, manufacturing and 



Teachers of Agriculture 17 

commercial interests. It provides that any state, to receive 
the benefits of the Act, must accept the provisions ; desig- 
nate or create a state board ; provide plans of its proposed 
work ; report annually to the federal board ; expend from 
state or community funds one dollar in addition to each 
dollar of federal funds received ; that schools must be un- 
der the public control ; that candidates for teachers must 
have had adequate vocational experience ; that the state 
must reimburse the federal government for lost funds ; that 
no moneys shall be expended on buildings, equipment, or 
lands ; that the federal board must report to Congress an- 
nually. 

The $50,000 appropriation of the Acts of 1890 and 1907 
is received by each of the forty-eight states and also by 
Porto Rico and Hawaii. (United States Bureau of Edu- 
cation Report, 1917, Vol. II, pp. 371-372.) 

Magnitude of the Land-Grant Colleges as Shown 
BY Statistics 

The following official statistics are significant of the 
growth of the land-grant colleges from nothing in 1862 to 
these values in the year 1916-17. (United States Bureau 
of Education, 1918, No. 41.) 

Staff 
Instructors and experimenters 10,344 

Enrollment 
Students 133,405 

Degrees Conferred 

Bachelors 11,361 

Advanced 1,313 

Property 

Endowment funds $ 66,367,086 

Buildings 65,619,208 

Farms and grounds 30,937,913 

Apparatus and machinery 22,198,115 

Library 6,685,958 

Live stock 1,599,928 

Total $193,408,218 

Income 

State aid (appropriations) .$ 21,378,962 

College funds (tuition, endowments, etc.) 12,775,117 

Extension funds (states. United States, local, etc.) 4,513,718 

Experiment stations (states. United States, etc.) 4,414,419 

Federal aid (land and money grants) 3,687,181 

Total for year _% 46,769,397 

Lands 

Acres allotted by federal government 11,050,000 

Acres in fai'ms and grounds 22,861 



18 The Prepm-ation of 

Classification of the Land-Grant College on Basis 
OF Organic Relationships 

The forty-eight land-grant colleges* of continental 
United States may be classified on the basis of their organic 
connection with other educational institutions as follows : 

Nineteen (Oregon, Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, West Vir- 
ginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) are connected with state 
universities. 

Three (Delaware, New Jersey, and New York) are con- 
nected with other colleges or universities. 

Twenty-five (Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, 
Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, 
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Is- 
land, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, 
and Washington) are separate colleges of agriculture and 
mechanic arts. 

One (Massachusetts) is a separate college of agriculture, 
with the mechanic arts in another institution. (United 
States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 13.) 

The Evolution of Teacher Training in the Land- 
Grant Colleges 

The evolution of the participation of the land-grant col- 
leges in the preparation of teachers may be shown by the 
following significant facts related chronologically:** 

1002. — North Dakota added a two-year course in nature 
study. 

iOOS. — North Carolina established for rural teachers a 
two-year course, a one-year course, and a summer course, 
and for city teachers, a two-year course, a one-year course, 
and a summer course. The states of Connecticut, Ne- 
braska, Tennessee, California, and Missouri offered sum- 
mer-school work in agriculture for teachers. (A. C. True, 
Annual Report, Oflice of Experiment Stations, United 
States Department of Agriculture, 1903.) 



'"Whites. 

•''■As this study deals with only the land-g-rant colleges foi* whites 
located in continental United States, and as every state has one such 
college, and only one, the official names of the various institutions will 
not be used, but only the name of the state, it being understood that 
the facts stated apply to the land-gi'ant institution of that state. A 
list of the land-grani: colleges, with the latest official name of each, 
can be found in the most recent annual report of the United States 
Bureau of Education. 



Teachers of Agriculture 19 

1905. — Connecticut offered a two-year course for rural 
teachers. 

1906. — Departments of education were established in 
Louisiana and in Maine. Massachusetts made an appro- 
priation of $5,000 for normal work. There were depart- 
ments of education in Georgia, California, Minnesota, Ne- 
braska, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Departments of edu- 
cation which give special attention to training special teach- 
ers of agriculture were started in Illinois, Missouri, and 
Washington. Normal courses featuring agriculture were 
announced in the catalogs of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and 
Mississippi ; two-year normal courses are offered by Colo- 
rado, New York, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, and a three- 
year normal course in South Dakota. Summer schools 
were maintained in Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Mis- 
sissippi, New York, Ohio, Utah, Washington, and Wiscon- 
sin, and a correspondence course for teachers in North 
Dakota. Kentucky provides by law for recognition of 
Bachelor of Pedagogy and certificates issued by the normal 
department as licenses to teach in the public schools. 
(United States Bureau of Education Report, 1906, Vol. I, 
p. 569.) 

The legislature of Ohio enacted a law that the State Uni- 
versity shall never maintain a normal school, but may es- 
tablish a teachers' college of professional grade. 

1907. — Agriculture was taught in every state, territory, 
and outlying possession in the United States except Alaska 
and Arizona. Of the sixty-seven state agricultural col- 
leges, twenty-six were providing teachers' courses in agri- 
culture. (Dick J. Crosby, United States Department of 
Agriculture, 1907.) Agriculture is rated with other sci- 
entific and technical subjects as a suitable major for the 
doctorate in philosophy, not only in large universities like 
Cornell (New York) and Wisconsin, where agriculture is 
regularly taught in undergraduate courses, but in such uni- 
versities as Clark and Columbia. (Dick J. Crosby, Report 
of Office of Experiment Stations, United States Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, 1907, p. 237.) Illinois, Maine, and 
Missouri offer courses for persons who intend to teach agri- 
culture. 

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Michi- 
gan was authorized by law to determine, with the advice 
and consent of the president of the Michigan Agricultural 
College, the qualifications of teachers to be employed in 
county schools of agriculture, manual training, and domes- 
tic economy. New York offered a two-year normal course 
in nature study. In North Dakota, in order to admit more 



20 The Preparation of 

agriculture and mechanic arts instruction, the two-year 
teachers' course was extended to three years. Rhode Island 
modifies her four-year college courses in pure science into 
a teachers' course extending through four years and lead- 
ing to the Bachelor's degree. It is intended to prepare per- 
sons to teach the sciences that pertain to agriculture and 
the mechanic arts. (United States Bureau of Education 
Report, 1907, Vol. II., pp. 869 to 891.) 

1908. — Arkansas offered a normal course for public- 
school teachers, and Delaware made an effort to carry out 
the provisions of the Nelson Amendment. Louisiana estab- 
lished a four-year college course for teachers, the student 
being allowed to elect courses in agriculture. Michigan 
created a department of agricultural education, with courses 
including general agricultural education, agricultural edu- 
cation as applied to high schools and to rural schools. The 
legislature in Oklahoma created in the land-grant college 
the "Chair of Agriculture for Schools," and provided that 
graduates from the four-year course of the college shall be 
granted a permanent teachers' certificate of first grade 
when approved by the state commissioner of agriculture 
and industrial education, the president of the state board 
of agriculture, and the president of the college. (United 
States Bureau of Education Report, 1908, Vol. II, pp. 741- 
45.) New Jersey by law provided for summer courses in 
teaching agriculture, and that certificates of graduation 
from such courses as are prescribed by the state board of 
education shall be valid licenses in the public schools for the 
subjects covered by the certificate, provided the holder has 
another valid certificate to teach in public schools. Min- 
nesota oft'ered a summer school for teachers who intended 
to teach or supervise agriculture. North Dakota organ- 
ized education courses of college grade to prepare their 
graduates to teach agriculture, science, domestic science, 
and manual training. Tennessee established a department 
of agricultural education, chose an assistant professor of 
agricultural education, and provided courses to prepare per- 
sons for teaching agriculture and the applied sciences. 
Wisconsin estal)lished a special course to train those who 
are to teach and supervise agriculture. Washington of- 
fered a two-hour course in methods of teaching agriculture. 
(United States Bureau of Education Report, 1908, Vol. I, 
pp. 80, 81.) North Carolina conducted a one-month course 
for teachers. (United States Bureau of Education Report, 
1908, Vol. II, p. 741.) In Massachusetts courses for the 
training of teachers were oft'ered in 1907-8. (W. R. Hart, 
in questionary to G. M. Wilson.) At the end of the fiscal 



TeachevH of Agriculture 21 

year 1907-8 agricultural colleges were in operation in all 
the states and territories excepting Alaska. (Dick J. 
Crosby, in Report of Office of Experiment Stations, United 
States Department of Agriculture, 1908, p. 255.) 

1909. — Minnesota established a two-year course in in- 
dustrial and agricultural education to prepare teachers for 
the new agricultural high schools established by the legisla- 
ture. A department of education was established in North 
Dakota in fulfillment of the Nelson Amendment. Vermont 
established a department of teaching. Many colleges is- 
sued exercises, courses of study, and bulletins of instruc- 
tions. (Report of Experiment Stations, United States De- 
partment of Agriculture, 1909.) Oregon offered agricultu- 
ral education in a newly established department of indus- 
trial education. (H. P. Barrows' letter, September 4, 
1918.) 

1910. — Idaho established a specialized four-year course 
in agricultural education. (United States Bureau of Edu- 
cation Report, 1910, Vol. II, p. 985.) Oklahoma offered 
teachers' training courses. (J. H. Bowers, in questionary 
to G. M. Wilson.) Michigan opened a one-year course in 
agricultural education to graduates of other colleges and to 
teachers holding life certificates. (United States Bureau 
of Education Report, 1910, Vol. I, p. 256.) Alabama ap- 
pointed a professor of agricultural school work. At least 
forty-six of the land-grant colleges maintained teachers' 
training courses in agriculture, twenty-two offered four- 
year courses, three offered three-year courses, six offered 
two-year courses, five offered one-year courses, twenty-nine 
offered summer schools of agriculture for teachers, and six 
conducted correspondence courses. (Report, Office of Ex- 
periment Stations, United States Department of Agricul- 
ture, 1910.) Representatives of the land-grant colleges 
who were engaged in preparing teachers organized the 
American Association for the Advancement of Agricultural 
Teaching, which has since devoted itself to its manifest pur- 
pose. (Report, Office of Experiment Station, United 
States Department of Agriculture, 1911, p. 305.) "Even 
the most cursory review of educational progress in 1910 is 
sufficient to demonstrate the world-wide extent of the 
movement for the promotion of agricultural education." 
(D. J. Crosby, in Report, Office of Experiment Station, 
1910.) 

1911. — Iowa established a department of agricultural ed- 
ucation, with a full four-year special curriculum, contain- 
ing courses in professional subjects. Minnesota provided 
a six-weeks' course equivalent to a semester's work in col- 



22 The Preparation of 

lege credits for the special assistance of those desiring to 
teach agriculture. In Mississippi a school of industrial 
education was established to prepare teachers of agricul- 
ture and manual training, with the preparatory department 
as a school for practice teaching. Nebraska established a 
secondary school of agriculture in connection with the land- 
grant college. The Ohio Legislature authorized the estab- 
lishment of a high school to be located on the campus of 
the university and used as an observation and practice 
school by the university. A department of education to 
offer courses in agricultural pedagogy and methods of teach- 
ing was provided. (United States Bureau of Education Re- 
port, 1911, Vol. II, pp. 997-1013.) 

''There is no longer any question as to the demand for 
instruction in agriculture in colleges, normal schools, high 
schools, and elementary schools. We read it in the educa- 
tional journals, the magazines, and the daily papers; we 
hear of it at conventions, on railway trains, and in street 
cars; and we find all these agencies actually engaged in 
promoting agricultural education." (Report, Office Experi- 
ment Stations, United States Department of Agriculture, 
1911, p. 277.) 

The departments of agricultural education in many cases 
are giving special aid to instructors in public schools teach- 
ing agriculture, and are also giving special instruction in 
agricultural pedagogy and agriculture for teachers in sum- 
mer schools. (United States Bureau of Education Report, 
1911, Vol. I, p. 861.) 

Of fifty (white) land-grant colleges, only twelve give no 
special courses for students preparing to teach, although 
many of their graduates become instructors in agriculture 
in secondary schools, with only such preparation as their 
general college courses and technical agricultural courses. 
Three of the twelve offer summer-school courses in agricul- 
ture for elementary teachers; thirteen had a department 
(or school) of education when the Nelson Amendment was 
passed allowing students in agricultural courses to elect cer- 
tain courses in education ; ten others have added courses in 
psychology and general education, and thirteen have added 
departments of agricultural education, which give courses 
in methods of teaching agriculture and in school agricul- 
ture as well as in general pedagogy; nine offer special one 
or two-year courses for teachers of agriculture, and thirty 
offer courses in agriculture for elementary teachers in sum- 
mer schools; thirty-six offer special opportunity for stu- 
dents to fit for teaching agriculture, the mechanic arts, or 
domestic science; twelve ofi'er courses in general education. 



Teachers of Agy'iculture 23 

elective to all students ; fourteen offer courses in general ed- 
ucation and special courses in agricultural education ; seven 
allow students in the department of education to elect 
courses in agriculture; two offer courses in elementary ag- 
riculture in the school of education distinct from courses in 
agriculture in the college of agriculture; nine offer pre- 
scribed four-year courses for special teachers of agricul- 
ture; three offer one-year courses in agriculture to grad- 
uates of approved colleges or normal schools ; two offer 
two-year courses in nature study and agriculture for teach- 
ers ; thirty conduct summer schools which offer courses in 
agriculture primarily for public-school teachers. (United 
States Bureau of Education Report, 1911, Vol. II, p. 991.) 

The United States Commissioner of Education has made 
the following rulings (and they have been approved by the 
Department of the Interior) regarding the Second Morrill 
Act (No. 12, Statute L., p. 417, 1890) and the Nelson 
Amendment (No. 26, Statute L., p. 1281, 1907)— viz.; 

Rule 7. "No part of the funds received under the provi- 
sions of the Acts of 1890 and 1907 may be used for any 
form of extension work, and all instruction must be given 
at the institution receiving these funds, except that a rea- 
sonable portion of the funds provided by Act of 1907 may 
be used for the instruction of teachers of agriculture, me- 
chanic arts, and domestic science at summer schools, teach- 
ers' institutes, and by correspondence, and in supervising 
and directing work in these subjects in the high schools." 

Rule 8. "All or a part of the funds provided by the Act 
of March 4, 1907, may be used for providing courses for the 
special preparation of instructors for teaching the elements 
of agriculture and the mechanic arts. It is held that this 
language authorizes expenditures for instruction in the his- 
tory of agriculture and industrial education, in methods of 
teaching agriculture, the mechanic arts, and home econom- 
ics, also for special aid and supervision given to teachers 
actually engaged in teaching agriculture, mechanic arts, 
and home economics in public schools. It does not author- 
ize expenditure for general courses in pedagogy, psychol- 
ogy, history of education, and methods of teaching." 
(United States Bureau of Education Report, 1911, Vol. II, 
p. 973.) 

1912. — Indiana opened a summer school for teachers, of- 
fering instruction in agriculture. In Minnesota the three- 
year course in the school of agriculture (secondary grade) 
was increased to five years, and included normal work in 
the fourth and fifth years, with special reference to rural 
school teaching. (United States Bureau of Education Re- 



24 The Prepa}'ation of 

port, 1912, Vol. I, p. 265-6.) Minnesota established a divi- 
sion of agricultural education, with a full four-year cur- 
riculum, containing professional courses in agricultural 
education to go into active operation in 1913. (United 
States Bureau of Education Report, 1913, Vol. II, p. 272.) 
"From the best available sources of information it appears 
that forty of the agricultural colleges are offering courses 
designed to train high-school teachers of agriculture, fif- 
teen of which have four-year courses (curricula) for teach- 
ers of agriculture." (Circular 118, Office of Experiment 
Stations, United States Department of Agriculture.) 

"The activities in agricultural and mechanical colleges 
in the reorganization of their work for the preparation of 
teachers of agriculture, mechanic arts, and household econ- 
omy, which has been marked during the past few years, is 
still prominent. Ten institutions report 120 students tak- 
ing special courses of from one to four years arranged for 
the special preparation of teachers of agriculture. More 
than three-fourths offer some special opportunities for 
teaching agriculture, mechanic arts, and domestic science. 
Many teachers take advantage of the various short courses 
in agriculture, including summer schools, to supplement 
their training and exnerience." (United States Bureau of 
Education Report, 1912, Vol. II, p. 329.) 

191o. — Kansas established a secondary school of agricul- 
ture in connection with the college, and will use it as a 
model school in the teachers' training courses. Vermont 
established a department of agricultural education and 
planned a four-year teachers' training course with secon- 
dary practice schools. (Report of Commissioner of Edu- 
cation, 1913, p. 312.) Mississippi established a practice 
school in vocational education in connection with the school 
of industrial education. (United States Bureau of Educa- 
tion Report, 1913, Vol. II, p. 272.) 

The committee on instruction of the Association of 
American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations 
recommended that "teachers of agriculture in secondary 
schools should not have less than twenty semester hours of 
professional training, including instruction in educational 
psychology, history of education, pedagogy, and special 
methods applicable to agriculture in the secondary schools, 
supplemented by practice teaching." (United States Bu- 
reau of Education Report, 1913, Vol. I, p. 227.) 

19 lit. — "The call for graduates of the agricultural col- 
leges as teachers of agriculture in secondary schools is due 
in part to the increasing number of public and private high 
schools including agriculture in their curricula, but more 



Teachers of Agriculture 25 

to the rapidly growing demand that the agriculture taught 
by these institutions shall be of a vocational character." 
(United States Bureau of Education Report, 1914, p. 294.) 

New York introduced teacher training in the colleges of 
agriculture. (G. A. Works' questionary to G. M. Wilson.) 
The Smith-Lever Act was passed by Congress, May 8, 1914, 
and within a very short time was accepted by all the states, 
thereby again uniting the federal government and land- 
grant colleges in the enterprise of promoting a knowledge 
of agriculture among the people — this time among those 
who cannot come to the college campus to pursue their 
study. 

The following states accepted the provisions of the Smith- 
Lever Act and named their land-grant colleges to adminis- 
ter its provisions — viz. : Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts. (United States Bureau of Education Re- 
port, 1914, Vol. II.) The other states accepted later. 
Maryland established a course in agricultural education for 
teachers. Texas added a department of agricultural edu- 
cation, Washington provided a two-year course for teach- 
ers of agriculture and manual training. 

1915. — Alabama established a department of education, 
and Arizona one of psychology and philosophy. Missouri 
arranged a two-year curriculum in agriculture and in four 
other subjects. A course in education was provided. Rhode 
Island established a two-year course in agriculture. 

1916. — The passage by Congress of the Smith-Hughes 
Act, July 31, 1916, and its prompt acceptance by all the 
states (Second Annual Report, Federal Board, Secondary 
Education) has given an impetus to teacher training that 
will appear more clearly in the facts set forth in subse- 
quent chapters. 

The Federal Board for Vocational Education, which has 
the approval of institutions in the several states selected 
to prepare special teachers of agriculture for employment 
in Smith-Hughes vocational secondary high schools, has, 
on the recommendation of the boards for vocational educa- 
tion of the several states, approved such teacher-training 
institutions as follows : 

In forty-five of the forty-eight states the land-grant in- 
stitution is designated as the exclusive institution for the 
preparation of special teachers of agriculture ; in one state 
the land-grant college is named, with two state normal 
schools cooperating; in one the final decision will prob- 
ably be to name the land-grant college and one normal 
school; while in one the state university, which has a coop- 
erative working plan with the land-grant college, is named. 



26 The Prepaiution of 

From the preceding facts it seems safe to draw the fol- 
lowing specific conclusions — viz.: 

First. The land-grant colleges are advantageously distrib- 
uted over the United States. 

Seco)icl. They have been endowed generously by the states 
and the federal government jointly. 

Third. The federal government and the states have joined 
in their administration. 

Fourth. They are possessed of faculties of specialists in 
agriculture for investigating and teaching. 

Fifth. Each college has one or more agricultural experi- 
ment stations, the procedure and results of which are avail- 
able to students and faculty. 

Sixth. The special equipment, including such things as 
lands and live stock, so necessary to the proper teaching of 
agriculture, represent a very large investment at each in- 
stitution and in total. 

SerejitJi. Their organic connection with universities or 
with schools of science strengthens their work in other fields 
than technical agriculture. 

Eighth. The gradual growth within them of work in pro- 
fessional education has given opportunity to evolve success- 
ful coordination between the student's work in technical 
agriculture and his work in professional education. 

NiiitJi. The men more responsible than any others in the 
United States for properly determining the institutions that 
shall be approved for preparing special teachers of agri- 
culture, the members of the Federal Board for Vocational 
Education, have chosen the land-grant colleges almost uni- 
versally to perform that important function. 

To the foregoing conclusions may be added the state- 
ment of a condition familiar to all persons well acquainted 
with American educational institutions — viz., that no other 
class of institutions of education in America fulfill the con- 
ditions mentioned in any one (save the first) of the nine 
conclusions applied above to the land-grant colleges. 

The question asked at the beginning of the chapter re- 
garding the fitness of the land-grant colleges to prepare 
teachers of agriculture can now be answered by the gen- 
eral conclusion that the land-grant colleges of the United 
States are proper places in which to prepare special teach- 
ers of agriculture so far as that can be determined by the 
history of their origin and evolution. 



CHAPTER II 

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRAINING OF SPECIAL 
TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURE IN THE LAND- 
GRANT COLLEGES 

Section 1. Facts regarding separate departments, titles, 
college, head relation to president, control over curriculum, 
and recommendation of students. 

Section 2. Interpretation of the facts found in Section 1. 

Section 3. Conclusions derived from Sections 1 and 2. 

SECTION 1.— FACTS 

In Chapter I is evidence of a rapidly growing interest in 
the teacher-training work of the land-grant colleges, partic- 
ularly since the beginning of the twentieth century. 

The official report of the United States Commissioner of 
Education for 1910 (Vol. I, p. 256) shows the following 
dates of establishment of departments of agricultural edu- 
cation (agricultural pedagogy, industrial education, rural 
education, or similar title) in some of the land-grant col- 
leges: 1904, Mississippi; 1905, Illinois; 1907, Massachu- 
setts; 1908, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee; 
1909, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Mis- 
souri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin. 

Other states were added to the list from year to year, the 
final influence which caused the remaining states to prepare 
for teacher training being the passage of the Smith-Hughes 
Act of 1917. (See Chapter I.) 

The Federal Board for Vocational Education and its di- 
rector created by this Act required that each state submit 
plans for teacher training in the institution designated for 
that purpose. Upon the approval of these plans and their 
satisfactory execution depended the payment to the state 
of the federal moneys for teacher training. 

Based upon these plans, the land-grant colleges have been 
designated as the sole institution for the training of special 
teachers of agriculture under the federal Smith-Hughes Act, 
save one, where two state normal schools and the land-grant 
institution are designated jointly; one in which the state 
university, which has a cooperative arrangement with the 
agricultural college for the training of agricultural teach- 
ers, is designated ; and one in which final action is pending, 
with the possibility of the land-grant university and one 
normal school being jointly designated. 

These actions of state boards, approved by the Federal 
Board for Vocational Education, have practically deter- 



28 The Prcparatio}i of 

mined that the land-<?rant colleges shall be the only institu- 
tions that as a class shall be set apart as the institutions 
wherein the special teachers of agriculture shall be trained. 
To study their adaptation to this work and the degree to 
which the plans they have established give promise of suc- 
ces is the purpose of the remaining chapters. 

It may be assumed to be common knowledge that there 
has been for some time a very rapidly growing interest on 
the part of many people in the spread of knowledge of agri- 
culture, and also in the teaching of the subject in the public 
schools. It may also be assumed to be common knowledge 
among those engaged in the professional training of teach- 
ers that the faculties of practically all colleges (excepting 
teachers' colleges) and their administrative officers attached 
little importance to the necessity for the professional train- 
ing of the teacher. These "gentlemen of the old school" 
rested satisfied in the dogmatic statement that "if you know 
the subject-matter you can teach it." 

Not only to discover the evolution of sentiment on the 
part of such persons, but, what is of far greater importance, 
to learn whether or not the professional preparation of ag- 
ricultural teachers in the land-grant colleges is recognized 
as being sufficiently important to warrant its being classed 
with the major administrative as well as subject-matter 
divisions of the work of these institutions, and is, therefore, 
to be given an opportunity to develop with sufficient rapid- 
ity and freedom to be able to bear the heavy responsibilities 
which the future seems destined to place upon it, eleven 
questions were included in the questionary (see Appendix 
A) regarding the administrative relationship of agricul- 
tural education within the land-grant institutions. The an- 
swers to these questions furnish the facts for this chapter. 

Where the Administration is Organized and Who 
Administers 

Department Separate or Not. — The extent to which agri- 
cultural education (the preparation of special teachers of 
agriculture) is organized as a separate department is shown 
by the replies to the questionary which are included in Ta- 
ble 1. 

Table 1 — Is Agrieultural Edueatio)i Organized as a Sep- 
arate Department? (Appendix B, Table Al.) 

Answers I iislifiitioiis 

Yes 37 

No 7 

Not replying 4 



Teachers of Agriculture 29 

Separate Departments. — Of those organized as separate 
departments, nineteen are in separate land-grant colleges 
and seventeen in colleges connected with universities. (Ap- 
pendix B, Table Al.) Of the separate departments, the 
titles vary somewhat, as shown by Table 2. 

Table 2 — Titles of Departments and Number of Each. 
(Appendix B, Table Al.) 

Number of 
Titles I lutilntions Using 

Agricultural education 27 

Vocational education 5 

Rural education 1 

Rural and industrial education 1 

Rural life 1 

Of these departments, the number of institutions in 
which they are organized in certain colleges is shown in 
Table 3. 

Table 3 — Colleges Within ivhich Separate Departments 
for Traming Teachers of Agriculture are Organized and 
the Number of La^id-Grant histitutions in ivhich They are 
so Organized. (Appendix B, Table Al.) 

Number of 
Name of College Institutions 

In college of agriculture 24 

In college of education 5 

In colleges of agriculture and education jointly. _ 3 

In college of arts and sciences 2 

Independent 2 

Of the twenty-four that are departments in the college of 
agriculture, twelve are in separate colleges of agriculture, 
while twelve are in institutions connected with universities. 

Departments Not Separate. — Of the seven institutions in 
which the agricultural education is not a separate depart- 
ment, four are in separate colleges, while three are in uni- 
versities. 

Another feature of organization of value in determining 
the administrative status of the departments for the train- 
ing of teachers in the land-grant institutions is the degree 
of nearness or remoteness of the head of this department 
in relation to the president of the institution. Whether he 
is first or second in a direct line below the president is 
shown by Table 4. (Appendix B, Table Al.) 

Table U — Remoteness of Head of Department in Direct 
Line of Administration from President. 

Number of 
Institutions 

First (immediately responsible to president) 7 

Second (one administrative position between) 29 

No data 12 



30 The Preparation of 

In five of the twenty-nine cases there are two coordinate 
deans between the man directly responsible for training of 
the agricultural teachers and the president ; but as they 
act jointly, and not in line, the man in charge of the teacher 
training is said to be administratively second from the 
president. 

Of the seven that are not separate departments, but con- 
stitute a part of some department other than agricultural 
education, all are within departments of education, although 
one states that it may be placed in the college of agriculture. 
There it may become a separate department. In these 
seven the titles of the persons in direct charge of the work 
are all educational titles, no instance being found in which 
these nonseparate departments are under the direct admin- 
istration of subject-matter members of the faculty, the 
other duties of those responsible for the administration be- 
ing entirely in the field of professional education. 

The degree of remoteness of the person in direct charge 
of the agricultural education in these nonseparate depart- 
ments corresponds with those of the separate departments 
in that, of the four reporting, three are second and one first 
in order from the president, thus maintaining about the 
same general ratio. 

Administration of the Curriculum 

Approval of Specified Required Curricidmn. — In the ad- 
ministration of the curriculum required of the special teach- 
ers of agriculture the approval of the curriculum is author- 
ized as shown in Table 5. 

Table 5 — Who Approres the Curriculum. 

N limber of 
Frrsoiis Institutions 

Authorities within college of agricultiire 20 

Authorities within college of education ^ 2 

Authorities within colleges of agriculture and education jointly 7 

Miscellaneous, distributed as follows: 

Agriculture participating 4 

Education participating 2 

Indefinite or uncertain 7 

Approval of CJiaiige. — Almost as great a variety is found 
in the location of authority for the approval of any change 
from the prescribed curriculum, and these data are sum- 
marized in Table G. 



Teachers of Agriculture 31 

Table 6 — Who Approves Change hi Curriculum for a Stu- 
dent. 

Number of 
Replies Recek'ed _ Institutions 

Requiring the approval of head of agricultural education 25 

" " " " dean or director 16 

" " " " committee 4 

" " " " faculty 1 

" " " " agricultural college authorities only 22 

" " " " education college authorities only 3 

" " " " college of agriculture and education 

jointly 5 

Choice of Curriculum by Head of Teacher Training 

The question of whether the administrator of the educa- 
tional work is the one who chooses the other courses that 
constitute the curriculum for the prospective teachers of 
agriculture is significant, as shown in Table 7. 

Table 7 — Does the Educational Administrator Choose the 
Curriculum? 

Nuinher of 
4 II ':zecr I nstitiitions 

' Yes 33 

Yes, jointly with another or others 3 

No 5 

Not replying 7 

Approval of Preparation of Prospective Teacher. — To 
the question, "Who approves finally for the institution the 
preparation of the student as sufficient and proper for the 
special teaching of agriculture (not merely for gradua- 
tion) ?" the replies indicate a variety of authorities, as will 
be seen by consulting Table 8. 

Table 8 — Who Approves the Preparation of the Student. 

\' timber of 
Those Who . -If prove Institutions 

Director of school of agricultural education 1 

Professor of agricultural education 8 

Head of department of agricultural education 8 

Head of department of vocational education 1 

Instructor in special methods of rural education 1 

Department of agricultural education 3 

Department of vocational education 1 

Professor of agricultural education and dean of college of agricul- 
ture 2 

Professor of agricultural education and dean of science 1 

Head of department of agricultural education and dean of educa- 
tion 1 

Dean of college of agriculture 1 

Head of department of education 1 

Miscellaneous combinations 7 

No reply 12 



32 The Preparation of 

The replies may be condensed into three groups, repre- 
senting, respectively : Group One, those who constitute or 
are a part of the special department for preparing special 
teachers of agriculture ; Group Two, an officer of the depart- 
ment of agricultural education plus a dean ; Group Three, 
other combinations in which the representative of agricul- 
ture may or may not be included, but which includes other 
officers, committees, or faculties. The number of institu- 
tions in these three groups is shown in Table 9. 

Table 9—Condenmtlon of Table 8. 

.\' limber of 
Groups I nstitiitions 

One 23 

Two 4 

Three 9 

SECTION 2.— INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS 
SHOWN IN SECTION 1. 

The facts shown in the tables give great encouragement 
for believing that those responsible for the establishing of 
the preparation of special teachers of agriculture as a part 
of the work of the land-grant colleges have come to recog- 
nize two important truths — i. e., that special preparation 
on the part of those who are to teach is necessary in the pur- 
poses, principles, and procedure of the teaching processes, 
with special reference to the character of subject-matter 
and constituency of the teaching of agriculture in the ele- 
mentary and secondary schools, and also that, to bear suc- 
cessfully its great and rapidly accumulating responsibili- 
ties, the department for the preparation of special teachers 
of agriculture should have the dignity and influence which 
arise from occupying a position of administrative equality 
with such subject-matter units as agronomy and animal 
husbandry in the colleges of agriculture and as mathematics 
and history in academic colleges. More convincing evi- 
dences could scarcely be found than appear in these tables. 

Table 1 — Is There a Separate Department? Though there 
may be some uncertainty as to what constitutes a "separate 
department," the replies to the questionary, corroborated 
by catalogs, made the determination fairly accurate. If 
any error has been made, it has been in assigning to the 
nonseparate group certain institutions which for all prac- 
tical purposes have separate departments, but which, be- 
cause of local conditions that may have existed at the time 
of establishing this work, became incorporated within an- 
other department. It is significant that of the entire seven 
said-to-be nonseparate departments, six of them are parts 
of schools or departments of education and one of educa- 



Teachers of Agriculture c>i 

tion and agriculture jointly. (Appendix B, Table A2.) 
Of the six, three are in separate land-grant colleges, and 
are likely to exercise a great deal of influence in determin- 
ing the policies to be followed in preparing special teachers 
of agriculture. 

In one or two other instances wherein the department is 
separate from all subject-matter departments and depart- 
ments of general education, but includes the pedagogical 
training for some other class of educational teachers, such 
as home economics, it has been classed as separate, since it 
has the same administrative dignity, responsibility, and 
freedom as do the separate departments. With this fair 
assignment, 84 per cent of those furnishing information 
show separate departments. These are almost equally di- 
vided between the colleges that are separate institutions and 
those connected with universities, which is about the same 
relation the numbers of these institutions bear to each 
other. This same relation of numbers seems to prevail in 
regard to the departments that are nonseparate. 

Table 2 — Titles. With all the possibilities that existed of 
combining this work with that of the various subjects al- 
ready prominent in the colleges and universities, it is signifi- 
cant that 77 per cent of these separate departments adopted 
the title "Agricultural Education." So far as any evidence 
appears, this has been done wholly without the influence of 
conferences, committees, or the activities of an organization 
of any kind. With good judgment and discrimination, 
deans, presidents, and governing boards in naming these 
departments evidently recognized and desired to emphasize 
the two fundamental characteristics of the field of activ- 
ity — agriculture and education properly united. 

The naming of some of the departments called "Voca- 
tional Education" was, doubtless, promoted by the neces- 
sity of including in the department some pedagogical work 
for home economic teachers, while the name "Rural Life" 
was used by one institution to designate the department re- 
sponsible for the training of special teachers of agriculture, 
because the name "Agricultural Education" had already 
been appropriated by the institutions for another purpose. 
(Catalogs.) 

The names of these departments seem to indicate the rec- 
ognition on the part of the land-grant (agricultural) insti- 
tutions of their j'esponsibility for the preparation of spe- 
cial teachers of agriculture. 

Table 3 — /)/ What College? This table discloses that 65 
per cent of the land-grant institutions maintaining separate 
departments for the preparation of special teachers of agri- 



34 The Preparation of 

culture recognize the paramount importance of the college 
of agriculture in this work by organizing the department 
as an integral part of that college, while 8 per cent more 
unite the work in the colleges of agriculture and education, 
giving 73 per cent that recognize the necessity of the active 
participation of a federal land-grant agricultural college in 
the administration of the preparation of special teachers of 
agriculture. 

Of the remaining 27 per cent, approximately 8 per cent 
are in universities with colleges of agriculture as a part of 
their organization and 19 per cent are in separate colleges 
of agriculture, practically all of them administratively con- 
nected with some other division of the college of agriculture 
than its purely agricultural subject-matter division. This 
shows that al)out 90 per cent of these separate departments 
are organized within the specifically agricultural portions 
of the land-grant colleges or within administrative units 
that are themselves a part of the organization of separate 
land-grant colleges of agriculture. (Appendix B, Table 
Al, and catalogs.) 

And all of this must be considered in the light of the fact 
that practically half of the institutions are institutions that 
are organized as universities, and, as such, doubtless have 
colleges or schools of arts and sciences, and also of educa- 
tion, in which these departments of agricultural education 
could have been organized had there not been a special de- 
sire to place them in the colleges of agriculture. 

If evidence were needed that those responsible for estab- 
lishing the work of training special teachers of agriculture 
believe in the necessity for the paramountcy of a college of 
agriculture in that training, it is to be found here. 

Table h — Nearness to President. The relatively impor- 
tant administrative position of the department for the 
preparation of special teachers of agriculture is depicted 
clearly in this table, which shows that of the thirty-six in- 
stitutions reporting, seven (over 19 per cent) of the heads 
of the teacher-training departments are immediately re- 
sponsible to the president, while twenty-nine (about 81 per 
cent) have only one administrative officer (usually a dean) 
between him and the president. (Appendix B, Table Al.) 
This places the head of this department on an equality in 
one group with deans, and in the others with heads of the 
important subject-matter departments, such as animal hus- 
bandry and agronomy. To one familiar with the red tape 
of institutional procedure and the influence of administra- 
tive nearness to the final authorities, the importance of this 
in attracting students of good quality and in sufficient num- 



Teachera of Agriculture 35 

bers, in obtaining for them the opportunities they need for 
proper preparation, and in gaining from the pubhc, espe- 
cially the educational public, a proper recognition of the 
importance of agricultural education, will be at once ap- 
parent. 

Tables 5, 6, 7 — Control of Curriculum, and Recommenda- 
tioii for Completion. Assuming satisfactory native ability, 
each institution should see that the prospective special 
teachers of agriculture are properly equipped in these par- 
ticulars — viz.: Practical agricultural experience, scientific 
agricultural knowledge, appropriately distributed over the 
fields of agriculture which they will be called upon to teach, 
practical teaching experience, and scientific knowledge of 
education, with special reference to their prospective sub- 
ject-matter and constituency, both agricultural and educa- 
tional. 

To even approximate the accomplishing of this in the 
four-year college curriculum requires a knowledge of condi- 
tions, a judgment of values, and a power of impartial dis- 
crimination possessed by few. 

If the determination of the general procedure and spe- 
cial variations therefrom were to be left to the specialists 
in agricultural subject-matter, the student's preparation in 
the science and art of education would be likely to suffer; 
and if left to the conventional educationist, his science and 
art of agriculture (and possibly, also, his art of education) 
would be likely to suffer. The man to make these niceties 
of arrangements and readjustments should be one with a 
practical knowledge of farms and schools and a scientific 
knowledge of agriculture and teaching, who is familiar with 
the demands to be made upon the special teacher of agri- 
culture in the present and in the immediate future. This 
the man or men in this new department for the prepara- 
tion of special teachers of agriculture is rapidly approxi- 
mating. How near he has come to the goal will be shown 
later. 

Assuming that he is as near to it as the unfortunate dis- 
crepancy between supply and demand permits, the only safe 
plan is to give him large voice in choosing the curriculum 
of this prospective special teacher of agriculture, in ap- 
proving variations therefrom, and also in the final approval 
for the institution of the fitness of the student to become a 
special teacher of agriculture. Table 7 shows that of 
forty-one institutions maintaining a specified curriculum 
for the prospective special teacher of agriculture, the man 
in charge of agricultural education chooses its contents in 
80 per cent of the colleges and jointly with others in 7 per 



36 Tlie Preparatio}) of 

cent more. Of the remaining 12 per cent (minor fractions 
make 1 per cent) replying in the negative, "faculty of the 
division of agriculture and general faculty ;" "dean of agri- 
culture;" "president, dean of agriculture, and dean of gen- 
eral science ;" "dean of college ;" "faculty of agricultural col- 
lege," are authorities named as those who choose it. 

From personal knowledge of the writer obtained on visits 
to some of these institutions, he is quite sure that the an- 
swer was intended to show the nominal authority, while 
the real authority is in the man in charge of the training 
of the teachers. Even granting no weight to these assump- 
tions, the heavy predominance of direct evidence shows 
that the authorities of the land-grant colleges have placed 
this power of choice largely within the authority of the 
men in charge of the professional preparation of special 
teachers of agriculture, and that in many instances where 
it is not solely under his choice the joint authority is so 
close to him that it is fair to presume that even in these 
institutions he will be able to obtain for his students a dis- 
tribution of subject-matter well adapted to their needs, 
subject only to the offerings of the institution, and that 
land-grant colleges, because of this, are favorably condi- 
tioned so far as choosing a curriculum for the preparation 
of special teachers of agriculture is concerned. 

The facts in Table 5 agaiii emphasize the great impor- 
tance of the college of agriculture in the approval of the 
curriculum of the prospective special teacher. Of the 
thirty-five classifiable replies, the college of agriculture 
solely approves in 57 per cent, unites with the college of ed- 
ucation in 20 per cent more, and with others in 11 per cent 
more, making 88 per cent in which the college of agriculture 
authorities participate. The college of education solely ap- 
proves in slightly less than 6 per cent, jointly with agri- 
culture in 20 per cent more, aiid with others in slightly 
less than 6 per cent more, making 31 per cent in which the 
college of education participates to any degree. These per 
cents strongly sustain the previous evidence of the impor- 
tance which the authorities governing the land-grant insti- 
tutions accord to the college of agriculture in the proper 
preparation of special teachers of agriculture. 

In Table 6 we find a reinforcement of the conclusions 
drawn from Tables 5 and 7. These facts reinforce Table 
5 by showing that any variation from the specified curric- 
ulum for the prospective special teacher of agriculture 
must ).)e approved solely by the college of agriculture au- 
thorities in 73 per cent and jointly with the college of edu- 
cation in 17 per cent, making a total of 90 per cent partici- 



Teachevfi of Agriculture Z7 

pated in by the college of agriculture, as against the col- 
lege of education solely, 10 per cent, and jointly with the 
college of agriculture, 17 per cent, or a total of 27 per cent 
participated in by the college of education. 

The facts in Table 6 reinforce Table 7 by showing that 
in thirty-eight replies the authorities of the head of the 
department having in charge the preparation of special 
teaching of agriculture is required 66 per cent of the times, 
against 42 per cent for the dean or director (18 per cent 
being instances in which the head joins with the dean or 
director) and 11 per cent for a committee (51/2 per cent 
being instances in which the head joins with the commit- 
tee) . 

Tables 8 a)id 9 — Approval of Preparatlo)i. There is some 
possibility that those who replied did not interpret this 
question alike, some thinking in terms of final authority and 
some in terms of initial authority ; but the presence of 
the word "finally" in the question would have a tendency 
to cause those answering to ignore the head of teacher 
training and name the authority that last passes upon stu- 
dent preparedness rather than upon the initial authority 
whose recommendation subsequent approving authorities 
accept and indorse on faith. Even with this large proba- 
bility of error against the number of institutions in which 
the head of the teacher training recommends the student, 
the facts in Table 8 show plainly that in 64 per cent of the 
institutions replying this final approval of the sufficiency 
and character of the preparation of the prospective teacher 
of agriculture lies solely with persons specifically in charge 
of the preparation of special teachers of agriculture, while 
in 11 per cent more he unites with a dean, bringing 75 per 
cent of these cases under his immediate approval. 

Though there is no data upon the point, a knowledge of 
college and university procedure would lead one to venture 
the assertion that no candidate would be recommended as 
properly prepared as a special teacher of agriculture 
against the expressed disapproval of the man in charge of 
the preparation of special teachers of agriculture. 

Further evidence of the recognition of the importance of 
the department of agricultural education in the proper prep- 
aration of special teachers of agriculture is seen in the fact 
that of the twenty-seven definite combinations of authority 
for approval of the candidate found in Table 9, it is shown 
that 64 per cent of the institutions place this solely with a 
person in agricultural education, while 75 per cent place it 
with him alone or with him plus a dean. 



38 The Preparation of 

From this evidence, so recent and so direct, it is apparent 
that those responsible for determining the place agricultu- 
ral education — i. e., the preparation of special teachers 
of agriculture — is to occupy in the administrative organiza- 
tion of the land-grant institutions place a high value on the 
work to be done and recognize the desirability of making 
its administrative position of sufficient dignity, authority, 
and responsibility to enable it to perform its duty with 
both immediate and ultimate success. This is discernible 
in the action of most of the colleges in making it a separate 
department coordinate with other subject-matter depart- 
ments directly under either the president or a dean, and in 
giving to those responsible for teacher training the largest 
share in determining this curriculum and directing the 
preparation of the student therein and approving the suffi- 
ciency and character of his preparation when he has fin- 
ished. 

This evidence makes more certain the statement that the 
administration of the preparation of special teachers of 
agriculture in the land-grant colleges is on a basis that war- 
rants the expectation of future success so far as good ad- 
ministrative organization is a factor in such success. 

SECTION 3.— SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 

The facts in Section 1 and their interpretation in Section 
2 seem to warrant the following conclusions : 

1. The land-grant institutions favor the organization of 
the work of preparing special teachers of agriculture in a 
separate department. 

2. The land-grant institutions favor naming the depart- 
ment that is to prepare special teachers of agriculture "ag- 
ricultural education." 

3. The land-grant institutions favor the department of 
agricultural education being organized as a part of the col- 
lege of agriculture. 

4. The land-grant institutions favor the department of 
agricultural education occupying a position coordinate in 
rank with the most important departments of the institu- 
tions. 

5. The land-grant institutions favor placing in the man 
or men of the department of agricultural education the 
authority for choosing the four-year curriculum for the 
special teachers of agriculture, its variation, and the ap- 
proval of the student as properly prepared. 

6. By their administrative organization of the work of 
preparing special teachers of agriculture the authorities 
of the land-grant institutions seem to appreciate the great 



Teachers of Agriculture 59 

responsibility resting on those institutions for the prepa- 
ration of such teachers. 

7. The authorities of the land-grant institutions seem to 
appreciate the desirability of placing the departments hav- 
ing charge of the preparation of special teachers of agri- 
culture upon a sufficiently high administrative plane to en- 
able them to function successfully. 

8. The land-grant institutions seem to recognize the su- 
periority of the college of agriculture over all other col- 
leges for the administration of the preparation of special 
teachers of agriculture. 

9. The land-grant institutions seem to appreciate the 
wisdom of granting departments organized to prepare spe- 
cial teachers of agriculture a large amount of authority 
over the curriculum provided for such special teachers and 
the approval of students prepared therein. These lead to 
the final conclusion : 

10. That the administration of the preparation of special 
teachers of agriculture in the land-grant institutions is on 
a basis that warrants the expectation of future success so 
far as administrative organization can contribute to such 
success. 



CHAPTER III 

IN WHAT COLLEGES OF THE LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS 
THE PROSPECTIVE SPECIAL TEACHER OF AGRICUL- 
TURE OBTAINS HIS EDUCATION AND THE 
QUALIFICATIONS AND RANK OF 
THOSE WHO TEACH HIM 

Scctio)! 1. Facts showing colleges in which he studies, 
degrees of those who teach him agriculture and of those 
who teach him education ; character of trainin«g and expe- 
rience of those who teach him education ; and professorial 
rank of the faculties of agricultural education mid of the 
faculties of the institutions as wholes. 

Srctio)! :^. Interpretation of the facts found in Section 1. 

St'ctio}! o. Conclusions derived from Sections 1 and 2. 

SECTION 1.— THE FACTS 

To discover how the land-grant institutions are bearing 
their responsibilities in preparing these special teachers 
through the opportunity given the students of participating 
in the activities of several colleges in the institution ; the 
extent to which the institutions have sought to make this 
preparation of special teachers eificient through faculties 
well equipped and of sufficient numbers ; and also the extent 
to which those responsil)le for the establishment of depart- 
ments of agricultural education in the land-grant institu- 
tions have recognized their importance by the rank accorded 
to the members of these faculties, a series of questions was 
included in the questionary (Appendix A, Part B, Questions 
1 to 7, inclusive) , upon the answers to which the facts of 
this chapter are principally based. 

Disfribxfioii of Studoifs' Work Amo}i(i fJtc Colleges. — 
Probably no other teacher to-day needs so broad, so thor- 
ough, and so diversified a preparation for his work as does 
the teacher of agriculture, especially the one who is to teach 
in the secondary schools. This will be discussed more fully 
in Chapter V, but is stated at this point to indicate the rea- 
son for inquiring regarding the colleges in which he is being 
educated and the college faculties from whom he obtains his 
instruction. The first question in the questionary elicited 
the facts in Table 10, which shows the number of land-grant 
institutions in which the students take the subjects shown 
at the tops of the colums in the kind of college shown at the 
left. 

Table lo— Colleges in Wltieh This St/uleiit ObtaiNs His 
Preparation. (Subjects at top, colleges at left.) 



Teachers of Agriculture 41 

NUMBER OF LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS IN WHICH THESE SUBJECTS 
ARE OBTAINED 

Othcf 
Name of C<>ll,'<ic Aiiricultui-f I'.diicatioii S.icuccs Siihjrcts 

Ag-rieulture L 42 11 5 4 

Education 18 

Arts and Sciences 3 24 13 

Ag-riculture and Arts jointly 5 .^ 2 

Agriculture and Education jointly. _ 1 

Engineering 1 

Unclassified 2 14 

No reply 6 8 13 24 

By referring to Appendix B, Table Bl, it is seen that the 
following numbers distribute the preparation of the stu- 
dent over the given number of colleges as shown in Table 11. 

Table 11 — Distribution of Students' Work Over Colleges. 

NUMBER OF COLLEGES IN SINGLE LAND- NUMBER OF LAND - GRANT 

GRANT INSTITUTIONS IN WHICH THIS INSTITUTIONS MAKING 

STUDENT TAKES INSTRUCTION THIS DISTRIBUTION 

In 5 colleges 1 

In 4 colleges 5 

In 3 colleges 15 

In 2 colleges 12 

In 1 college 6 

No I'eply 9 

Agriculture Faculty. — As the most significant features 
of the preparation of these special teachers are the work 
in technical agriculture and in education, it seemed desir- 
able to find out the number and educational preparation of 
the persons from whom the prospective teachers of agri- 
culture receive their instruction in these two important 
classes of subjects. 

In Table 12 have been summarized the results of the 
questionary replies upon these points. (Appendix B, Ta- 
bles B2 and 3.) This table shows the total number of fac- 
ulty members in the college of agriculture who are engaged 
in teaching this student his agriculture and whose highest 
degrees are the Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctor's, respec- 
tively, and the number holding each of those degrees. It 
also shows the maximum number in any one institution, 
the minimum in any one institution, the average for all in- 
stitutions reporting, and the number of institutions report- 
ing. 

Table 12 — Total Maximum, Average, Minimum, and 
Number of Institutions Reporti^ig the College of Agricul- 
ture Facultii Members Who Teach Agriculture to the Pro- 
spective Special Teachers of Agriculture, Classified by the 
Highest Academic Degrees Held. 



42 The P)-(pa)-afio}t of 

NUMBER OF AGRICULTURAL FACULTY MEMBERS 

Jijclu-lor Master Doclor Total 

Total ?,!?, 805 127 745 

Maximum 40 40 15 

Avevage 9 8 4 21 

Minimum 111 

Number of institutions SG 86 32 36 

Table 13 gives the same data relating to the numbers of 
the faculties who teach education to the prospective special 
teacher of agriculture in the several land-grant institu- 
tions, classified on the basis of the highest degree held. 

Table IS — Total Maximvm, Avera;je, MUiimum, and 
Number of I)istitutio)/s of Those Teaching Education. 

Ba.lu-lor Mastrr Doctor Total 

Total 40 55 41 136 

Maximum , 3 3 4 

Averag'e 1 2 — 2 — 4 — 

Minimum 

Number of institutions 24 36 25 36 

Table 14 gives the percentages of the faculty members 
teaching education, and also of those members of the agri- 
culture subject-matter faculties who teach agriculture to 
the prospective teachers of agriculture, classified by the 
highest degree each holds, the data being taken from the 
numbers in Tables 12 and 13. 

Table H — Percentages of Facultii Members Holding the 
Respective Degrees. (For more complete explanation, see 
above.) 

F,i(-iiitii-s liarlu-lor Master Doctor 

Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent 

Agriculture subject-matter 42 , 41 17 

Education 30 40 30 

Preparation of Education Facultii. — The character and 
amount of preparation possessed by those who are to teach 
the educational subjects to the prospective teacher of agri- 
culture are extremely important, since they have so great 
an effect upon the success of the teacher, particularly during 
his early years of teaching. 

The important features will be shown in three tables — 
Numbers 15, 16, and 17. In Table 15 is shown for each 
state furnishing the data the percentage to the nearest in- 
teger of the faculty members who teach educational courses 
to the prospective special teachers of agriculture in the 
land-grant institution of that state who possess the follow- 
ing characteristics — viz.: (a) Special collegiate prepara- 
tion in education equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in educa- 
tion, but not collegiate preparation in agriculture; (b) 
special collegiate preparation in agriculture equivalent to 



Teachers of Agriculture 43 

a Bachelor's degree in agriculture from a standard land- 
grant college, but not collegiate preparation in education ; 
(c) special collegiate preparation in agriculture equivalent 
to a Bachelor's degree in agriculture from a standard land- 
grant college, and also in education equivalent to a Bach- 
elor's degree in education; (d) reared on a farm; (e) 
taught in elementary or secondary schools. 

Table 15 — Education and Experience of Those Teaching 
Educational Subjects to the Prospective Special Teachers of 
Agriculture. (For explanation, see foregoing paragraph.) 

State Rcportinf) Percentage Possessing Qualification 

a 1) c d e 

Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent 

Alabama 50 50 100 100 

Arizona 50 50 100 

Arkansas 75 25 50 100 

California 100 100 100 

Colorado 100 fi7 100 

Connecticut 100 100 100 

Florida 100 100 100 

Georgia 80 60 40 80 100 

Idaho 67 33 100 100 

Illinois 100 67 100 

Indiana 67 33 100 100 

Iowa 50 50 100 100 

Kansas 60 20 20 100 100 

Kentucky 67 33 100 100 

Louisiana 67 30 67 67 

Maine 100 100 100 

Maryland 67 33 100 100 

Massachusetts 100 100 100 

Michigan 50 50 100 100 

Minnesota 17 83 67 100 

Mississippi 50 50 100 75 

Missouri 100 

Nebraska 80 20 100 80 60 

New Jersey 67 33 67 67 

New Mexico 100 100 

New York 50 50 75 100 

North Carolina 100 100 100 

North Dakota 100 

Oklahoma 33 33 67 67 

Oregon 75 25 75 

Pennsylvania 43 14 43 100 71 

Ehode Island 75 25 25 100 

South Carolina 100 100 67 

South Dakota 50 50 100 100 

Tennessee 100 100 100 

Texas 100 100 100 

Utah 100 50 50 

Vermont 67 33 100 100 

Virginia 100 100 100 

West Virginia 60 40 100 100 

Wisconsin 50 50 100 67 

Wyoming 50 50 75 100 



44 Tlie Prepa)-atioii of 

In Table 16 is shown a gTouping of these same facts with- 
in intervals of 10 per cent above zero up to and including 
100 per cent. 

Table 16 — Th.c Tra'ui'uig and Experience of Members of 
the Edi(catio)iai Facidtij. (a) Equivalent to Bachelor's 
Degree in Agriculture; (b) i)i Education; {c) in Both; 
(d) Reared on Farm; {e) Taught Elenientarii or Secondanj 
School. (Appendix B, Table B3.) 

P<-r ('rut <:f l-\i,iiltv Mc-nihcrs X:niihcy of I list il ill ion. t 

a 1. c cl e 

100-01 8 1 7 25 29 

90-81 10 

80-71 5 5 2 

70-(;i 7 G 5 

(50-51 3 1 

50-41 8 4 5 2 2 

40-31 13 7 

30-21 4 10 

20-11 13 10 

10-1 

31 17 3 3 

Nuiiilter rcpoi'tino- 42 42 42 42 42 

In Table 17 is shown the maximum, average, and mini- 
mum and the mode where it is significant of the facts in- 
cluded in Tables 15 and 16 (forty-two institutions). 

Table 17 — Maximum, Average, Mi)tinium {and Mode) 
of the Facts in Tables 15 and 16 {Percoitages) . 

a I. c .1 e 

Per Ciul l'ir(\-!it l'cr(\iit [\r(\iit IV- r Cent 

Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 

Mode 100 100 

Average 54 11 35 81 85 

Minimum 

Professorial Rank 

The professorial rank of those on the staff of agricultural 
education, like the administrative rank, is of significance 
as showing the degrees of recognition accorded to this field 
of endeavor by those responsible for establishing these new 
departments and the promise of efficiency in performing 
their duties as shown by the rank. In Table 18 a compar- 
ison is made between the percentages of faculty members 
of the different ranks in the dep^artments of agricultural 
education, taken from the answers to the questionary (Ap- 
pendix Bl), with the percentages of the faculty members 
of the same rank in the land-grant institutions as a whole, 
taken from the most recent available catalogs of those in- 
stitutions. 



Teachers of Agriculture 



45 



Table IS — Number of Faculty Members of Differ e7it 
Professorial Rank hi Land-Grant Iiistitutious as a Whole 
and in Departments of Agricultural Education. (Appen- 
dix B, Table B4, and catalogs.) 



INSTITUTIONS AS A WHOLE 



department of 
ac;kicultural education 



States ?' ^, ? ^ ? 2 i. 

Alabama 31 2 7 8 17 

Arizona 28 5 11 7 11 

Arkansas 26 2 15 26 11 

California 30 11 37 20 7 

Colorado 20 8 8 18 13 

Connecticut __. 14 2 17 

Florida 28 6 3 5 7 

Georo-ia 23 12 10 6 7 

Idaho 34 8 11 17 4 

Illinois 80 8 115 127 170 

Indiana 42 15 41 54 25 

Iowa 39 38 41 91 37 

Kansas 32 20 42 69 32 

Kentucky 51 3 18 22 4 

Louisiana 31 1 8 15 3 

Maine 26 12 16 16 1 

Maryland 30 16 2 3 

Massachusetts.- 27 9 14 16 11 

Michig-an 22 18 31 74 11 

Minnesota 109 57 118 221 225 

Mississippi ___ 27 11 6 31 6 

Missouri 64 23 28 46 70 

Montana 26 19 18 4 

Nebraska 112 50 40 63 67 

New Jersey -__ 33 10 10 17 

New Mexico ___ 20 9 9 6 

New York 172 4 145 210 184 

North Carolina 18 4 5 26 

North Dakota . 22 3 14 7 

Ohio 94 8 45 55 89 

Oklahoma 23 3 17 24 24 

Oregon 42 10 31 49 7 

Pennsylvania _ 41 31 59 97 44 

Rhode Island-- 16 4 8 

South Carolina 25 11 19 9 1 

South Dakota-- 28 5 8 19 2 

Tennessee 28 6 7 18 11 

Texas 28 21 39 17 2 

Utah 29 6 18 18 

Vermont 53 2 11 35 

Virg-inia 27 13 13 15 

West Virginia- 46 8 13 26 15 

Wisconsin 73 51 86 26 76 

Wyoming 27 2 7 19 15 

Total 1,734 517 1,284 1,691 1,167 



a. 


•t:^. 


■^a. 


^ ^ 


2 


























1 


2 


1 




6 




5 
















• 




2 


1 
















1 


2 




3 








3 


1 






2 


2 














1 
























1 










3 






1 


1 














1 










2 
























1 


3 5 




1 


1 








1 


3 




















3 




4 












1 








1 
















3 








1 




1 












1 










1 






2 


1 






2 







57 36 



18 



15 9 



46 The Preparation of 

The totals are not particularly significant, but the per- 
centages computed therefrom are significant as they appear 
in Table 19. 

Table 19 — Percentages of Faculty Members of the Differ- 
ent Ranks in the Entire PacuUies of the Land-Grant Insti- 
tutions and in the Departmeuts of Agricultural Education 
Within the Same Institutions. 

Pcrccntaac of 
Pcrccntiiiic of Agriciill iiial 

Total Eiiiicalion 

Ranks Ftiriilly raciilty 

Professor 27 42 

Associate Professor 8 27 

Assistant Professor 20 13 

Instructor 27 11 

Assistant 18 7 

(Summary) 

Professorial rank 55 82 

Lower than professorial rank 45 18 

The percentages of the total faculty were calculated from 
the entire institution, excepting in the states of California 
and Massachusetts, for which the catalogs of the colleges of 
agriculture only were used — for California, because com- 
plete data were not available for all the colleges; and for 
Massachusetts, because there is no organic connection be- 
tween the college of agriculture and the other institution 
participating in the land-grant funds. 

SECTION 2.— INTERPRETATION OF FACTS SHOWN 
IN SECTION 1. 

As has been mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, 
the special teacher of agriculture needs a broad and diversi- 
fied preparation in order to succeed. This l)readth and 
diversification are needed not only in the subject-matter 
studied, which will be considered more fully in Chapter V, 
but also in the points of view, aims, methods of procedure, 
and relative values which are likely to characterize the dif- 
ferent kinds of colleges. Contact with the difi'erent facul- 
ties, classroom procedures, laboratory methods and equip- 
ment, systems of assignments and of evaluating and mark- 
ing pu])il achievement, standards of attainment, educational 
authorities, and many other experiences that give breadth 
and diversification to the preparation of the prospective 
teacher, so much needed by all, but particularly by the 
teacher of agriculture, are more fully attainal)le if the stu- 
dent studies in more than one college of an institution. The 
land-grant institutions are eminently fitted as a class to 
perform this service for the prospective teacher of agricul- 
ture, since about half of them are state universities, in 



Teachers of Agriculture 47 

which it is possible for the student to participate in the 
work of the colleges of agriculture, arts and sciences, engi- 
neering, education, and others; while the better class of 
separate land-grant colleges that are not parts of universi- 
ties have developed, in addition to strong work in agricul- 
ture faculties, libraries, laboratories, and courses in arts 
and sciences, in engineering, and in education, that rival, 
and in many instances surpass, those of many of the state 
universities. One familiar with land-grant institutions 
feels confident that they possess, as a class, the facilities for 
giving this breadth and diversification of preparation. To 
learn whether or not they were so organizing the work of 
preparing special teachers of agriculture as to take advan- 
tage of these facilities was the purpose of that portion of 
the questionary designated as Bl (Appendix A), the an- 
swers to which are found in Table Bl of Appendix B. 

Tables 10 and 11— Where the Student is Taught. The 
facts in Tables 10 and 11 of this chapter furnish some in- 
teresting evidence. In Table 10 we find that the college of 
agriculture furnishes this student his agriculture in 100 
per cent of the institutions replying, and also furnishes ed- 
ucation in 271/2 pel' cent ; his sciences, in 14 per cent ; and his 
other subjects, in 17 per cent. The colleges of education 
furnish only one subject, and that is education ; and that 
it furnishes in 45 per cent of the institutions, the other 55 
per cent being ofl:ered 27i/> per cent in colleges of agri- 
culture, 71 i> per cent in arts and sciences, I21/2 per cent in 
a combination between agriculture and arts and sciences, 
21 o per cent in a combination between agriculture and 
education, and 5 per cent unclassified. 

Arts and sciences furnish education in 7Vo per cent, fur- 
nish sciences in about 70 per cent, and "others" in about 
37 per cent of the institutions. A combination of the col- 
leges of agriculture and arts and sciences furnishes the edu- 
cation in 12'-_> per cent, the sciences in 14 per cent, and 
"others" in 8 per cent of the institutions. 

The other colleges — such as medicine, engineering, "serv- 
ice" — are mentioned in various combinations in a few in- 
stances. 

In Table 11 the numbers of institutions are distributed 
on the basis of the number of colleges in which the stu- 
dents of each institution pursue courses. In this table it 
is seen that in 3 per cent (nearest integer) of the institu- 
tions the student pursues courses in five difi'erent colleges ; 
in 13 per cent of the institutions, in four colleges; in 38 
per cent of the institutions, in three colleges ; in 31 per cent 



48 The Preparation of 

of the institutions, in two colleges; and in 16 per cent, in 
only one college. 

Summarizing these shows that in 85 per cent of the land- 
grant institutions these students pursue courses in two or 
more colleges. This evidence, convincing as it is, is still 
further strengthened by an examination of the original ta- 
bles (Bl in Appendix B), in which it is seen that some o^ 
the institutions classed among the one-college institutions — 
e. g., Michigan and Massachusetts — are among the institu- 
tions strong enough to give the necessary breadth and di- 
versity to these students. 

This table, by showing the prominence of the college of 
agriculture in furnishing both agricultural and educational 
work to the student, again emphasizes the statement pre- 
viously made in this dissertation that there was evidence of 
the appreciation on the part of the land-grant institution 
administrative officers of the desirability of the agricultural 
work and the educational work of the student being closely 
interwoven during his collegiate preparation. 

Table 12 — The Agriculture Fociiltii. Special attention 
should be called to the fact that the figures in this table do 
not apply to the entire agriculture faculty of the institu- 
tion, but only to those members of the agriculture faculty 
who teach courses to the students who are preparing to 
become special teachers of agriculture. Probably the most 
striking lesson to be learned from this table is that in the 
land-grant institutions, large and small, to the extent of 
the thirty-six reporting, this prospective special teacher 
receives instruction in agriculture from an average of 
twenty-one different members of the agricultural college 
faculty who hold the decree of bachelor, master, or doctor. 
When we add the statement that some most valuable in- 
struction in agriculture is given by persons holding no de- 
grees, we are more fully convinced that the land-grant col- 
leges are admirably (lualified to prepare special teachers of 
agriculture so far as the number of faculty members offer- 
ing work in agriculture contributes to this end. And when 
we think of the high degree of specialization which such a 
large number of faculty members permits, we feel justi- 
fied in saying that the land-grant institutions are excellently 
qualified to prepare special teachers of agriculture in so far 
as opportunity for thorough preparation in subject-matter 
by the differentiation of agricultural subjects is made pos- 
sible by a large number of agriculture faculty members. 
When to this is added the evidence of the respectable num- 
ber holding advanced degrees — 58 per cent of the entire 
number — we conclude that the land-grant colleges are pre- 



Teachers of Agriculture 49 

eminently qualified, so far as faculty is concerned, to give 
to this prospective special teacher his preparation in agrri- 
culture. 

Table IS — The Education Facultij. As preparation in 
education is the other prime essential in the service which 
the collegiate institution is to perform for the prospective 
special teacher of agriculture, Table 13, which gives the 
same facts about the faculty members who teach him his 
education as Table 12 did about those who teach him his 
agriculture, is of equal value as evidence. 

While the total number of faculty members teaching edu- 
cation to this student is necessarily smaller than the num- 
ber teaching him agriculture, it is probably in fair proDor- 
tion to the number of semester hours taught by each. 

The most significant feature of this table is found in the 
number of faculty members teaching education to this stu- 
dent who hold the difi'erent degrees in comparison with 
those holding the same degrees who are teaching him agri- 
culture. This is set forth in the next table. 

Table 14 — Degree Comparison of Agriculture mid Educa- 
tion Faculties. This brief and simple table shows the su- 
periority in preparation of those faculty members who teach 
the prospective special teacher of agriculture his educa- 
tional subject over those faculty members who teach him 
his agricultural subjects, so far as the possession of bach- 
elors', masters', and doctors' degrees indicate preparation 
for teaching. 

Tables 15, 16, aud 17 — Character of Preparation a)id Ex- 
perience of Education FacuUy. The feature in which the 
preparation of the special teacher of agriculture is most 
likely to prove defective when applied is that the profes- 
sional pedagogical training given him in his college course 
will fail to function in his work as a teacher. The princi- 
pal reason for this is most likely to be found in the lack of 
practicality in the pedagogical work offered in his collegiate 
course, which, in turn, is most likely to be due to the fact 
that those of the faculty who teach the education courses 
lack proper preparation in some one of the four fundamen- 
tals — viz. : Practical agriculture, scientific agriculture, prac- 
tical teaching experience in elementary or secondary 
schools, and scientific study of education. Onesidedness 
in this preparation makes it impossible to do the most suc- 
cessful work in correlating suitably methods and subject- 
matter for prospective teachers of agriculture. Degrees, 
though valuable as an indication of the ability to obtain an 
education, and of having done so to a certain extent, are 
not a sufficient measure of the character of the proper 

4 



50 The P)-cparati(>)i of 

preparation and experience of the person who is to teach 
education to the prospective teacher of agriculture. 1^'or 
that reason other and more important information was 
sought in the questionary (Appendix A, Part B, III, Ques- 
tions 3 a, b, c, 4, 5, 6), the substance of which may be found 
in the paragraph introducing Table 15. In this table are 
some particularly convincing facts. Only one state in the 
list has a faculty with 100 per cent trained to the equiva- 
lence of a bachelor's degree in education only and not in 
agriculture. This faculty, however, consists of onlj^ one 
member, who for that reason especiallj;^ should have been 
one who could qualify under column c. Over 62 per cent 
of the institutions have one or more of their faculty mem- 
bers who can qualify under c — that is, has preparation 
equivalent at least to a bachelor's degree in education and 
also a bachelor's degree in agriculture. When we consider 
the few men in the United States who have been so pre- 
pared and the enormous demand there has been on the part 
of the Smith-Hughes authorities, both federal and state, 
for men so trained to occupy positions in the administration 
of Smith-Hughes matters which lie almost entirely outside 
of actual teacher training and to the effects of the war, we 
must acknowledge the sincerity, earnestness, and determi- 
nation of the land-grant institutions in manning their fac- 
ulties so effectively. 

When we consider that the numbers in Tables 15, 16, and 
17 include all persons who teach education to this student, 
and that this includes those who teach psychology, history 
of education, and similar subjects somewhat removed from 
direct application to the teaching of agriculture, it is ap- 
parent that even to a larger degree than these tables indi- 
cate those who teach the more practical educational courses 
are persons who have had at least bachelor's training in 
both agriculture and education. 

A very striking and convincing feature of these figures 
is the large number of institutions whose faculty members 
teaching education to these students show 100 per cent farm 
experience, while those showing 100 per cent experience 
teaching in elementary or secondary schools is even more 
striking and convincing. A fact even more convincing is 
the number — over 45 per cent — of the institutions 100 per 
cent of whose faculty were both reared on a farm and have 
had experience in teaching in elementary and secondary 
schools. To Texas belongs the distinction of having a good- 
sized faculty (4), standing 100 per cent in being educated 
in both agriculture and education (column c), 100 per cent 
reared on a farm, and 100 per cent experience in elemen- 



TeacJicfs of Agriculture 51 

tary or secondary school teaching. Connecticut, North 
Carohna, and Tennessee show also 100 per cent in each of 
these columns, but each has only one member of the faculty. 
In addition to the above, Minnesota and South Carolina, 
the former with six faculty members and the latter with 
three, show all three of these columns above 66 per cent. 

The distribution of these percentages into 10-per-cent 
intervals, shown in Table 16, are mainly interesting be- 
cause of the central tendencies appearing in columns b, c, 
d, e, and the lack of a dominating tendency in column a. 
Column a shows a rather irregular distribution, with the 
three major number of institutions at per cent, 50 per 
cent, and 100 per cent. The most convincing feature of 
this column is the number of institutions (9) that have no 
member of the education faculty who is limited to prepara- 
tion in education only, while the most to be regretted is the 
number who have education faculty members whose prep- 
aration is only in education. This is not quite so bad when 
we consider that over 80 per cent of these institutions have 
other members in the same faculty who are prepared, in 
agriculture and who can teach those courses in education 
most closely connected with the future actual work of the 
teacher of agriculture. 

Column b makes a strong showing of the small number 
of those who teach education who have preparation in agri- 
culture with less than the equivalent of a bachelor's degree 
in education. Only one institution has 100 per cent of such 
persons (and that is an institution having only one mem- 
ber of the faculty), while the remaining forty-one have 50 
per cent or less of their faculties so poorly equipped. Of 
these, thirty-one institutions have no members of their 
education faculties who are limited in their preparation to 
agriculture without the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in 
education. 

Column c shows that seven of the forty-two institutions 
reporting have no one on their faculties of education who 
teach education to these students who has not preparation 
equivalent to at least a bachelor's degree in agriculture and 
also in education. This is the standard to be striven to- 
ward by the other institutions, particularly by the seventeen 
institutions having no member of its education faculty with 
this double preparation. 

Column d furnishes evidence that from the standpoint of 
practical farm experience the institutions rank high in the 
number of their faculty members teaching education to this 
student who have had practical farm experience, having 
been reared on a farm. Of the forty-two institutions re- 



52 Tlie Prcparatio)} of 

porting, twenty-five of them have 100 per cent of their 
faculty members reared on the farm, while thirty-six of 
the forty-two have 67 per cent or more of their faculties 
reared on the farm, and only three institutions have none 
of their faculty members reared on the farm. Though the 
percentage of these faculty members with agricultural prep- 
aration equivalent to a bachelor's degree in agriculuture is 
not as large as it should be for the best results, the fact that 
so large a percentage of those giving the education courses 
were farm reared is likely to give the education instruction 
the saving grace of practicability so far as its agricultural 
contacts are concerned. 

Column e is as convincing as is colmns d in its evidence. 
It shows that of the forty-two institutions reporting, 
twenty-nine have 100 per cent of these education faculty 
members who have taught in elementary or secondary 
schools, and that thirty-six of them have 67 per cent or 
more of their faculty members who have had such expe- 
rience. In this, as also in the small number (3) of insti- 
tutions having no members with elementary or secondary 
teaching experience, column e is the same as column d. 

The evidence of the promise of efficiency in this field is 
reinforced by Table 17, particularly by those figures show- 
ing the mode and the average. While the average per cent 
of column a (teachers with preparation equivalent to a 
bachelor's degree in education, but not equivalent to the 
bachelor's degree in agriculture) is all too large, the facts 
that the average of those having the equivalent of a bach- 
elor's degree in agriculture and less than that in education 
is only 11 per cent, and that the average of those having the 
double preparation of the equivalence of the bachelor's de- 
gree in education and also in agriculture is 35 per cent, give 
most convincing evidence, especially under the unfortunate 
conditions of supply and demand, of men possessing this 
very desirable double preparation. The averages of the 
percentages having farm experience and teaching expe- 
rience — 81 per cent and 85 per cent, respectively — are also 
most convincing proof of the faculty facilities of land-grant 
colleges for their task of preparing special teachers of agri- 
culture. 

Modes, not always significant, are here forceful in sup- 
porting the conclusions to be drawn from the other figures. 
That the modes for farm experience and previous teaching 
experience in elementary or secondary schools should be 
100 per cent and that for teachers with training in agricul- 
ture, but not in education, per cent, are strong arguments 
for the support of the statement that the land-grant insti- 



Teachers of Agriculture 53 

tutions are well adapted to the training of special teachers 
of agriculture so far as farm and teaching experience can 
equip a faculty for this duty. The mode of column c, the 
double preparation standard, is not so favorable a sign; 
but the previous explanation of the causes creating this 
condition removes most of the significance of the criticism. 

Tables 18 and Iff — Professorial Rank. The numbers of 
faculty members of each rank in each institution shown in 
Table 18 constitute the facts which produced the quantities 
in Table 19. 

If there should remain any doubt as to the importance 
which those in charge of the land-grant institutions attach 
to their responsibility for the great duty placed upon them 
of properly preparing special teachers of agriculture for 
the United States or of the opportunity being open for those 
engaged in this work to function efficiently, it should be 
dispelled by this table. 

If it were the intention to treat this work as of minor 
importance or, while placating public demand by installing 
it, to prevent its becoming efficient, the land-grant institu- 
tions could have relegated these faculty members to unim- 
portant professorial ranks, which would have been both 
easily done and quite efficacious in hampering the success 
of the work of preparing the special teachers of agriculture. 

What was actually done by the land-grant institutions in 
this regard is shown in Table 19, where a comparison is 
made between the professorial ranks of the faculty mem- 
bers of the departments having in charge the preparation 
of special teachers of agriculture in the land-grant institu- 
tions and the entire faculty membership of the same insti- 
tutions. 

The agricultural education faculties far exceed the entire 
faculties in members bearing the rank of full professor, 
having 42 per cent, as against 27 per cent for the entire fac- 
ulties. This superiority is again shown in the number of 
those holding the second rank, that of associate professor, 
wherein the agricultural education faculties show 27 per 
cent, as against 8 per cent for the entire faculties — a ratio 
of over three to one in favor of the faculties of agricultu- 
ral education. In the three less important ranks of assis- 
tant professor, instructor, and assistant, the preponderance 
progressively increases in the entire faculties, as is shown 
by the numbers 13-20, 11-27, 7-18, the first number in each 
pair representing agricultural education. 

The conclusive facts appear in the last two items in the 
table, which show that of the members of the agricultural 
education faculties, 82 per cent are of professorial rank; 



54 The Preparation of 

while of the entire faculties, only 55 per cent are of such 
rank ; and, complementary thereto of the agricultural edu- 
cation faculties, only 18 per cent are of lower than profes- 
sorial rank ; while of the entire faculties, 45 per cent are of 
lower than professorial rank. 

SECTION 8— CONCLUSIONS FROM SECTIONS 
1 AND 2 

The facts in Section 1 and the interpretation given to 
these facts in Section 2 seem to warrant the following con- 
clusions : 

1. The distribution over the several colleges of the land- 
grant institutions of the courses of the student who is pre- 
paring to become a special teacher of agriculture gives him 
an opportunity to obtain that breadth and diversity in 
points of view, methods, relative values, classroom pro- 
cedure, laboratory methods and equipment, systems of as- 
signment, and of evaluating and marking pupil achieve- 
ment, standards of attainment, educational authorities, and 
other acquisitions, that will conduce to his success as a 
teacher and which could not be attained to the same degree 
in less diversified college experience. 

2. Since every land-grant institution has a college of ag- 
riculture as one of its major units and gives the prospec- 
tive special teacher of agriculture his agricultural prepara- 
tion in that college, these institutions, as a class, are well 
prepared to give through this college to these prospective 
teachers their preparation in agriculture. 

3. That there is a strong tendency in the land-grant in- 
stitutions to give a vital coalescence to the agricultural in- 
struction and the educational instruction of the prospective 
teacher of agriculture which makes for efficiency in his fu- 
ture teaching. 

4. That the large number of difi"erent faculty members 
teaching agriculture to this student makes possible a degree 
of specialization on the part of the faculty which should 
result in a deeper and more thorough preparation on the 
part of the student in the land-grant institutions than is 
possible in institutions with a more limited number of fac- 
ulty members teaching agriculture, and that, therefore, the 
land-grant colleges are well fitted by the size of their agri- 
cultural faculties to give to this prospective special teacher 
the preparation he needs in agriculture. 

5. That, so far as degrees are a measure of fitness, the 
land-grant institutions show a commendable measure of 
preparation on the part of the faculty members teaching 



Teacheys of Agi'icidture . 55 

agriculture to this student, and even more commendable on 
the part of those teaching him his education. 

6. That while the collegiate preparation in agriculture 
and in education of the members of the faculties who teach 
education to these prospective teachers in the land-grant 
colleges has not yet attained a satisfactory standard, still 
the land-grant institutions have accomplished all that could 
be expected of them in obtaining well-equipped faculty 
members for this special work, considering the state of sup- 
ply and demand of suitably prepared men. 

7. That in the practical qualifications of having been 
reared on a farm and of having taught in an elementary 
or secondary school, the education faculty members of the 
land-grant colleges who teach education to this special stu- 
dent are well equipped for effective service in preparing 
special teachers of agriculture. 

8. That the recognition given the agricultural education 
faculty members of the land-grant institutions in the mat- 
ter of professorial rank indicates an appreciation on the 
part of the land-grant institutions of the importance of 
preparing special teachers of agriculture and of the re- 
sponsibility of these institutions for furnishing such prep- 
aration. 

9. That this recognition of the agricultural education 
faculty should be a factor in increasing the efficiency of the 
land-grant institutions in their work of preparing special 
teachers of agriculture. These specific conclusions lead to 
the general conclusion : 

10. That in the distribution of the student's work over 
several colleges, in the preparation and experience of those 
who teach him, and in the ranking of those who are in direct 
charge of his special preparation for teaching, the land- 
grant institutions are bearing successfully their responsibil- 
ities for the preparation of special teachers of agriculture. 



CHAPTER IV 

SPECIAL FITNESS REQUIRED FOR ENTERING UPON 

COLLEGIATE PREPARATION AS A SPECIAL 

TEACHER OF AGRICULTURE 

Sectio)i 1. The facts regarding the entrance requirements 
in general to the land-grant colleges; the variations for 
those students who are preparing to become special teach- 
ers of agriculture; the time when these students begin to 
differentiate their curriculum and any special fitness re- 
quired at that time. 

Secfio)i 2. An interpretation of the facts shown in Sec- 
tion 1. 

Section S. Conclusions deduced from Section 1 and Sec- 
tion 2. 

SECTION 1.— THE FACTS REGARDING SPECIAL 
FITNESS 

Entrance to Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture. — The 
United States Bureau of Education has published (United 
States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 28, pp. 19- 
31) the entrance requirements to the colleges of agriculture 
of the land-grant institutions as shown mainly by the cat- 
alog announcements for the year 1917-18. From that 
source is obtained the following information : 

"In each of these institutions applicants are admitted by 
either examination or certificate." "Larger proportions of 
students each year are being admitted by certificate." 
"Certificates are accepted generally from not only the high 
schools that are accredited by the institutions themselves, 
but from high schools that are accredited by state colleges 
and universities in other states." "In twenty-eight of the 
institutions there is a definite minimum age limit for ad- 
mission to freshman standing. In twenty-four of these the 
limit is fixed at sixteen years ; in two institutions it is fif- 
teen years ; in two others it is fourteen years." In the 
other institutions there is no age limit. For admission as 
special or unclassified students, twenty-five require the ap- 
plicants to be at least twenty-one years, nine require eight- 
een years, and the remainder publish no special age re- 
strictions. "In none of the institutions is farm experience 
a rigid requirement for admission." Some list a require- 
ment, but give opportunity to obtain it during the college 
course. "In eighteen institutions farm experience in vary- 
ing amounts is required some time before graduation." 

All the colleges except three require at least 14 units for 



Teachers of Agricnltvre 57 

regular admission, which is regarded as the minimum re- 
quired by standard colleges. The median requirement is 
15 for the land-grant colleges of agriculture. The total 
number of prescribed units ranges from 4 to lOi/i* the me- 
dian being 8. Only three states required fewer than 14 
units for admission — viz., North Carolina, South Carolina. 
and Mississippi. 

Figures collected by the United States Bureau of Educa- 
tion show that twenty-two of the land-grant institutions 
increased the number of units required for admission in 
1917-18 by a total of 88V:> over the number required in 
1912-13. (United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 
1918, No. 29, p. 74.) This is an average increase during 
the five-year period of 4 units per institution increasing 
and of 1-8 units per land-grant institution (white in conti- 
nental United States). 

This was sufficient to change the median number of units 
required in the land-grant colleges from 14 in 1912-18 to 
15 in 1917-18. (United States Bureau of Education Bul- 
letin, 1918, No. 29, p. 24.) "This increase in requirements 
has been made possible to some extent by substituting voca- 
tional subjects for certain academic subjects, which seems 
to indicate a general liberalizing of the college-entrance 
requirements." (Ibid.) Of the 881 -j units increase, 46 
units were in ten of the thirteen institutions of the South- 
ern states, while 421/2 units were in twelve of the other 
thirty-five states. 

By grouping the various land-grant institutions geo- 
graphically, we see that of those falling within the territory 
of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools — viz., Ohio (15),* Indiana (15), Illinois (15), 
Michigan (15), Wisconsin (14), since raised to 15 (Appen- 
dix B), Minnesota (15), Iowa (15), Missouri (15), Okla- 
homa (15), Kansas (15), Nebraska (15), South Dakota 
(15), North Dakota (15), Montana (15), Wyoming (15), 
Colorado (15) — every one of the sixteen states has the full 
requirement of 15 units that has been set by this association 
as the standard for all classes of colleges within these states. 
(United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 19, 
for units in each state, and Proceedings of North Central 
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools for stand- 
ards.) 

By the same process we see that of the thirteen states 
lying in the territory of the Association of Colleges and Sec- 
ondary Schools of the Southern states, eleven of the land- 
grant colleges — that is, Virginia (14), West Virginia (15), 

*Units. 



58 The PrcporatioH of 

Georgia (14), Florida (16), Alabama (14), Mississippi 
(14), Louisiana (14), Texas (14),* Tennessee (14), Ken- 
tucky (15), and Arkansas (14) — are either up to or above 
the requirements set by that association for all standard 
colleges within the states of the association. In the terri- 
tory of this association only two land-grant colleges — 
North Carolina and South Carolina — are below the require- 
ments set for all standard collegiate institutions within 
that territory. 

The land-grant institutions in the unassociated territory 
to the west of these two great standardizing associations — 
viz., Idaho (15), Utah (15), Nevada (15), Arizona (15), 
California (15), Oregon (15), and Washington (15) — have 
unanimously set their standards of entrance equal to the 
requirements of the higher of the two association stand- 
ards — viz., the 15 units of the North Central Association. 

Of the five states in the territory of the Association of 
Colleges and Preparatory Schools of the Middle States and 
Maryland — New York (15), New Jersey (15), Pennsylva- 
nia (15), Delaware (14), and Maryland (15) — four of the 
five have a standard equal to that of the North Central As- 
sociation, and the fifth equals the standard of the Southern 
Association. Though the system of the Middle States is 
not so well standardized as are the systems of the North 
Central and Southern Associations, its college-entrance cer- 
tificate board determining the standards for the association 
through its system of examinations (Pedagogical Seminary, 
September, 1916), yet when expressed on the unit basis they 
are as shown above (United States Bureau of Education 
Bulletin, 1918, No. 29, p. 74). 

Of the land-grant colleges situated within the territory of 
the New England Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools — viz., Maine (14V2)» New Hampshire (15), Ver- 
mont (14' -j),* Massachusetts (14), Rhode Island (14), and 
Connecticut (14) — all are at or above the unit standard 
set by the Southern Association, while some of them reach 
that of the Central Association. The New England system 
is quite unlike that of the Central or Southern Associations, 
in that the college certificate board bases its system of ac- 
crediting secondary schools upon the success of students 
who attend the colleges that are members of the association 
(Pedagogical Seminary, September. 1916) ; but on the unit 
basis the land-grant institutions of the New England States 
rank as shown above (United States Bureau of Education 
Bulletin, 1918, No. 29, p. 24). 

'"Since increased to Ifi. (Ap])enclix B.) 



Teachers of Agriculture 59 

Changes in Ent7'ance Requirements. — The replies to the 
questionary show the following to be the only changes made 
in the entrance requirements since the year 1916. 

Colleges to the number of thirty state definitely that there 
have been no changes, and three colleges do not mention any 
changes. Of the remainder, the following changes are 
given : One year each of social and natural sciences re- 
quired (two years in 1920) ; no foreign language required, 
more agriculture accepted ; raised to 14 units (Mississippi) ; 
no foreign language required ; additional 14 unit of book- 
keeping and 1/2 ^init elective allowed toward entrance ; more 
agriculture accepted; raised to 15 units (four colleges); 
three years' English required if no foreign language and 
4 vocational units accepted ; decreased history 1 unit, in- 
creased mathematics 1/2 unit, foreign language dropped ; one 
additional unit in agriculture accepted. (Unless otherwise 
shown by a parenthetical expression, each item set off by 
semicolons represents one institution.) 

Comparison of Entrance Requirements of Students Who 
Are to Prepare for 'Teaching with Others. — The replies to 
the question, "Do entrance requirements to the freshman 
class for those preparing to become special teachers of agri- 
culture differ from those required of other students?" pro- 
duced the following facts (Appendix B, Table C) : 

Table 20 — Do Entrance Requ.ireme)its Differ for the Pro- 
spective Special Teacher of Agriculture? 

Replies Sumhcr of Iwxtitiitiom; 

No 39 

Miscellaneous 4 

Not replying 5 

Total 48 

The miscellaneous replies were: Adequate farm expe- 
rience; three years' farm experience; farm experience two 
years or equivalent ; and farm experience. 

When Studoit Begins to Differentiate His Curriculum. — 
The point in the college curriculum at which the student 
who is preparing to teach begins to differentiate his cur- 
riculum is shown in Table 21. (Appendix B, Table C.) 

Table 21 — Where Prospective Special Teacher of Agri- 
culture Differentiates His Curriculum. 



60 The Preparation of 

\ IM BKIt 111- I \S I I VI' I liiNS 

)\;u l^:c|^n|■tcd Kcdistnhut,-J 

Freshman 5 (5) 

Sophomore 5 (5) 

Sophomore (second semester) 3 (4) 

Sophomore or Junior 2 (0) 

Junior 28 (2!)) 

Senior 1 (1) 

No rei)ly 4 (4) 

Numl)er institutions total 48 48 

111 the final column the sophomore-junior was equally dis- 
tributed between sophomore and junior. 

Evidence of Special Fitness. — Whether at the time the 
prospective special teacher of agriculture differentiates his 
curriculum he must furnish evidence of special fitness or 
preparation that is not required of other students, and. if 
so, what is shov/n in Table 22. (Appendix B, Table C.) 

Table 22 — Must Special Fitness be Shonni, and, if so, 
What? 

h'itlh s yiniibc'i- of Instil lit ions 

No 26 

Personal conference 4 

Farm experience 8 

Personal qualities .3 

Combination of above 2 

Miscellaneous not above 3 

No reply 5 

Total 48 

The miscellaneous are: "We try to practice a system of 
selection by encouraging the best students to take the agri- 
cultural education course" (Louisiana) ; "He must signify 
his intention of becoming a teacher of agriculture" (Min- 
nesota) ; "(jrades and personality" (Montana). The 
amount of farm experience required is not mentioned in 
some of the replies, while two years is mentioned in three 
states, two years after being twelve years of age in one, 
five years in one, and "adequate" in one. 

SECTION 2.— INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1 

E)t trance Req>ii)-eme)tt.s. — The facts contained in the par- 
agraphs treating of the entrance requirements to the land- 
grant colleges of agriculture point definitely to one impor- 
tant conclusion, which is that these institutions, as a class, 
rank equal to or above the other standard collegiate insti- 
tutions located in the same geographico-educational areas 
of the United States. This is shown convincingly by the 
following: 



Teachers of Agiiculture 61 

Of the sixteen land-grant colleges of agriculture within 
the area of the North Central Association of Colle'?es and 
Secondary Schools, which is recognized as one of the most 
authoritative bodies, if not the most authoritative body, of 
voluntary standardizing educational associations of the 
United States, all measure up to the standards set by that 
association. 

Of the thirteen land-grant colleges of agriculture within 
the area of the Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools of the Southern States, which is second only in im- 
portance to the North Central Association, all but two 
measure up to the standards set by that association. 

In the eight mountain and Pacific Coast states, unorgan- 
ized into an association, but largely influenced by the North 
Central Association, all the land-grant colleges of agricul- 
ture measure up to the high standards of the North Central 
Association. 

While the Association of Colleges and Preparatory 
Schools of the Middle States and Maryland uses a som.e- 
what different system, yet when measured by the standards 
of the North Central and Southern Associations, the land- 
grant institutions show five on the high standard of the 
North Central Association and the remaining one on the 
standard of the Southern Association. 

Though the system in use in New England is not a unit 
system, when reduced to that basis the land-grant institu- 
tions of those six states show three on the Southern basis, 
two on the North Central basis, and one halfway between 
them. 

Summarizing these gives the clear-cut evidence that of 
the forty-eight states, the land-grant institutions in forty- 
six of them (96 per cent) have entrance req[uirements 
which meet the standards set by one or the other of the two 
great entrance-requirement standardizing associations of 
Am.erica, and only two of them (4 per cent) fail to do so. 

The convincing character of this is increased by the 
knowledge that these standards have not been determined 
by the land-grant institutions themselves, but by the rep- 
resentatives of all kinds of high-grade colleges and sec- 
ondary schools from twenty-nine of the states occupying 
the great central area of our country working assiduously 
together for many years. 

All of this confirms the conclusion that so far as meeting 
standard quantitative entrance requirements is concerned, 
the land-grant colleges, as a class, are bearing successfully 
their responsibility of preparing special teachers of agri- 
culture. 



62 The Preparat'w)} of 

All interesting l)y-product of the facts regarding entrance 
requirements is the remarkable showing made by the South- 
ern Stales in the period between 1912-13 and 1918-19, dur- 
ing which time ten of the thirteen states increased the num- 
ber of units required for entrance into the land-grant insti- 
tutions a total of 51 units, which equals 5.1 units per insti- 
tution participating, or about 4 units per each of the thir- 
teen institutions. 

This enables one to conclude that the land-grant institu- 
tions in the Southern States are rapidly i*aising their en- 
trance requirements up to or alcove the standards set by the 
association of their territory and closely approaching the 
median for the United States. 

Few changes of importance have been made in the en- 
trance requirements in the past two years, excepting the 
increase in the number of units required for admission, al- 
ready mentioned, on the part of several institutions. 

The other items worthy of notice are the acceptance for 
entrance of more of the vocational subjects, such as agri- 
culture, and the abandoning of the foreign-language re- 
quirement in a few institutions. 

So far as these affect the work of the land-grant insti- 
tutions, they would have a tendency to increase their effi- 
ciency in the preparing of special teachers of agriculture 
by attracting students who have already shown an interest 
in the vocational subjects ; by enabling such students to 
profit more from their college work because of more pre- 
vious preparation in the vocational field; by making the 
teaching of agriculture more attractive because of the stu- 
dent's early experience with it before entering college, and 
by making him a more successful teacher because of his 
experience in studying agriculture in a secondary school. 

If a conclusion were to be drawn from this acceptance 
for entrance of more vocational subjects, it would be that 
the land-grant colleges, by such changes in their entrance 
requirements as have been recently made, show a tendency 
toward admitting more readily students who will ultimately 
make good special teachers of agriculture. 

Table ,S0 — Difference hi Entrance Requirements. This 
table shows that the greatest diff"erence made between the 
entrance requirements for the prospective special teacher of 
agriculture and other students is farm experience. It 
shows that the entrance standards for this class of stu- 
dents are not only as high as for other students of the col- 
leges of agriculture of the land-grant institutions, but that 
in some instances they are higher, and, when higher, the 
additional requirement (farm experience) is one that will 



Teachers of Agriculture 63 

have a large and beneficial effect upon their fitness to be 
special teachers of agriculture. 

The full extent to which farm experience is required of 
this student is treated again in connection with Table 22. 

Table 21 — When This Student Begins to Differentiate His 
Curriculum. This table shows that in 68 per cent of the 
institutions this differentiation takes place later than the 
end of the sophomore year and in 78 per cent not before the 
middle of the sophomore year. While a more nearly unani- 
mous agreement is to be desired, this shows the general 
tendency of these institutions to require two years of college 
work before permitting specialization. 

The advantages of differentiating at this point are many 
and important. It gives to this student the same general 
training in the fundamentals of his college course as other 
students receive. By causing the student to defer his 
choice of a field of specialization until the junior year, the 
maturity which he has acquired and the collegiate training 
which has shown him more plainly his own abilities and 
preferences and improved his judgm.ent regarding future 
possibilities in the various occupations, professions, aiid 
vocations, will enable him to make his choice with greater 
wisdom. 

By making his choice at the beginning of the junior 
year, the student still has two years remaining in which to 
give special attention to preparing himself for teaching. 
In this period he can obtain the professional training which 
has been shown to be necessary, and also to properly dis- 
tribute his preparation over the various agricultural sub- 
jects and correct any inequalities of practical experience 
and scientific training which he may possess. 

In making the differentiation at the junior year, the ma- 
jority of the land-grant colleges are in harmony with the 
spirit of the times, which is finding expression in the re- 
quirements of the standard professional schools, such as 
medicine, law, and education. 

Table 22 — Evidence of Special Fitness. From the ques- 
tionary replies shown in Table 22 it is plain that while 
twenty-six of the forty-three colleges replying state that 
they have no specific requirement at this time, the remain- 
ing replies indicate that a practice is developing of those in 
charge satisfying themselves that the student is adapted by 
personality, attitude, and experience to becoming a teacher. 
The extent to which the land-grant colleges are to require 
farm experience of at least two years previous to entering 
upon collegiate training for teaching is shown in the atti- 
tude of those administering the Smith-Hughes law. The 



64 The P)-eparation of 

federal officers in charge insist that the prospective special 
teacher of agriculture should have at least "two years of 
successful experience in farming, gained largely after he 
has reached the period of life where he can approximate 
the work of a man on a farm." (Federal Board for Voca- 
tional Education, Bulletin No. 27, p. 17.) 

Again, they say : "The minimum amount of farm expe- 
rience (for graduation) should be at least the minimum two 
years of practical experience required for entrance plus an 
additional amount of farm practice in the college course." 
(Federal Board for Vocational Education, Bulletin No. 13, 
p. 25.) 

When it is realized, as has been shown previously in this 
dissertation, that the land-grant colleges in all of the states 
(save possibly one) have been designated as institutions 
for the preparation of special teachers of agriculture under 
the Smith-Hughes law, it may be safely predicted that as 
soon as the land-grant colleges come into full operation un- 
der the law and peace conditions reestablish a normal num- 
ber of students in the colleges, the requirement of two years 
of practical and successful farm experience will be made for 
all who are to enter upon preparation in the land-grant col- 
leges to become special teachers of agriculture. 

SECTION 3.— CONCLUSIONS FROM SECTIONS 
1 AND 2 

The foregoing facts and their interpretation seem to jus- 
tify the following conclusions : 

1. That the land-grant institutions, as a class, maintain 
as high entrance requirements as are maintained by other 
standard institutions of collegiate rank in the United States 
offering both junior and senior college work. 

2. That the changes that have been made in entrance re- 
quirements by the land-grant colleges in the last seven years 
have been toward raising the number of units and toward 
accepting for entrance more units which are practical for 
students who are to become special teachers of agriculture. 

3. That where entrance requirements for the student 
who is to become a special teacher of agriculture differ from 
those required for other students, the difference is in the 
direction of requiring previous farm experience and the 
possession of certain desirable personal characteristics 
vvhich tend to increase his fitness as a special teacher of ag- 
riculture. 

4. That the land-grant institutions, as a class, tend to 
require the student to defer the making of his choice of 
xspecialization until he has had two years of college work. 



Teachers of Agriculture 65 

5. That the land-grant colleges are rapidly approaching 
the time when the requirement of at least two years of suc- 
cessful practical farm experience will become general for 
all persons who undertake to prepare as special teachers of 
agriculture. 

These five conclusions lead to the general conclusion that : 

6. The land-grant colleges, as a class, by quantitatively 
maintaining the same entrance requirements as do other 
standard colleges, and at the same time qualitatively em- 
phasizing especially the possession of farm experience and 
favorable personal qualities, exhibit a high degree of adap- 
tation to the successful preparation of special teachers of 
agriculture so far as requirements for students entering 
upon this preparation can affect such successful prepara- 
tion. 



CHAPTER V 

WHAT THE PROSPECTIVE SPECIAL TEACHER OF 
AGRICULTURE STUDIES 

Section 1. The facts regarding a required curriculum, 
the distribution of this student's courses over six general 
classes of subjects and also over twelve different subjects in 
agriculture, and over six different subjects in education. 

Section 2. Interpretation of these facts. 

Sectio)i .J. Conclusions drawn from Sections 1 and 2. 

SECTION 1.— THE FACTS 

Specified Required Curriculum. — The first noticeable fea- 
ture of the conditions regarding the curriculum is the num- 
ber of institutions requiring a specific curriculum of this 
student. This stands out very plainly in Table 23. (Ap- 
pendix B, Table D.) 

Table 23 — Number of I)istitutio)is Requiring a Specified 
Curriodum of the Prospective Special Teacher of Agricul- 
ture. 

Rcplli-s Xifinhcf I'f I iixhtiilioiis 

Yes ;58 

No 4 

Not replying- 6 

The four who reply "No" immediately i)roceed in the lat- 
ter portion of the questionary to show in detail the number 
of hours "required" in the various subjects that constitute 
the curriculum, showing that in replying "No" these per- 
sons had put a different construction upon the term "speci- 
fied curriculum" than had the others. Classifying those as 
replying "Yes" where they ought, doubtless, to be classi- 
fied, we have forty-two having a specified curriculum that 
is required of the students, with six institutions not reply- 
ing. 

What This Curriculum Contains 

General Di.'<tributio)i. — To determine the distribution 
over the various fields of knowledge which characterize this 
curriculum, detailed information was asked for in the ques- 
tionary (Appendix A) regarding the number of semester 
hours required of this student in each of the six fields of 
knowledge — viz., agriculture, science, nontechnical, profes- 
sional (educational), elective, and military and physical. 
The information so gathered furnished the data found in 
Table 24. (Appendix B, Table D.) 



Teachers of Agriculture 67 

Table 2U — Number of Semester Hours Required of This 
Student and Number of Institutions Requiring That Num- 
ber Distributed Through Groups of Ten Hours Each. 

INSTITUTIONS REQUIRING THIS NUMBER IN EACH OF THE 



Hours 
Required 

100-91 _ _ 


Agri- 

enlturc 

1 


FC 

Seie)ices 

4 
9 
18 
8 
2 


ILLOWING 

Xou- 
teehnieal 

2 

4 
10 
19 

3 


subjects: 

Pro- 
' fessioua! 

1 

10 

27 

3 


Elec- 
tive 

6 
32 


Military 

and 
Physical 


90-81 







80-71 - 


2 




70-61 


4 




60-51 


15 




50-41 


9 




40-31 

30-21 


8 

1 


1 


20-11 




5 


10-1 




30 



From the same sources have been obtained the facts for 
the next table (No. 25), which shows in more consolidated 
form the characteristics of these figures. 

Table 25 — Showing Maximum, Average, Median, Mode, 
Minimum, and Number of Institutions Reporting the Semes- 
ter Hours of the Subjects Shown in Table 2U Required of 
This Student. 















Military 




-U/ri- 




Non- 


Pro- 


Elec- 


and 




culture 


Sciences 


technical 


fessional 


tive 


Physical 


Number reporting-.. 


40 


41 


38 


41 


38 


36 


Maximum hours 


96 


59 


48 


33 


24 


23 


Average hours 


52 


37 


21 


18 


7 


7 


Median hours 


53 


37 


19 


16 


7 


6 


Minimum hours 


30 


15 


5- 


9 


3 


2 



Mode 51-60 31-40 11-20 11-20 1-10 1-10 

The facts in Table 26 are computed from the total num- 
ber of hours required in each class of subjects and the grand 
total required in all of the classes of subjects in the full 
curriculum of this student. 

Table 26 — Showing the Percentage Which the Number of 
Hours in Each Class of Subjects is of the Total Number 
Required in All Classes of Subjects in the Curricula for 
Special Teachers of Agriculture. 

Subjects Per Cent 

Agriculture 36.5 

Sciences 26.5 

Nontechnical subjects 14.1 

Professional subjects 12.7 

Elective 4.8 

Military and Physical Training 5.4 

Total 100 



68 The Preparation of 

For purposes of comparison there will be found in Table 
27 the same items (as nearly as they conform to the above) 
that are required by the land-grant colleges for the student 
who specializes in agronomy. (United States Bureau of 
Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 29, pp. 37-40.) 

Table 27 — Percentages of Distribution of the Require- 
ments for Graduation of the Student Specializing in Agron- 
omy in the Land-Grant Colleges. 

Subjects Per Cent 

Agriculture 36.5 

Sciences 30.6 

Nontechnical 16.6 

Elective 10.7 

Military and Physical Training 5.6 

Total 100 

Agriculture Distribution. — After knowing the general 
distribution which is made of the work of the prospective 
teacher of agriculture, the next two most important things 
to know are how wisely his agricultural work is distributed 
over the various agricultural subjects, and also how wisely 
his educational work is distributed over that field. This 
information was gathered by the questionary, and is shown 
in the remaining tables of this section. 

Table 28 — Showing the Maximum, Average, Median, 
Mode, Minimum, and Total Semester Hours, in the Subjects 
Shown, Required in the Land-Grant Colleges of the Student 
Who is Preparing to Become a Special Teacher of Agricul- 
t2ire, Together tvith the Number of Institutions Reporting 
in. Each Instance. 

Hours 
Maxi- Aver- Me- Mini- Total Colleges 

Subjects inuin age dian Mode mum Hours Reporting 

Farm Crops 17 7 7 8 3 279 38 

Soils 11 5 5 5 3 192 38 

Animal Husbandry __ 24 8 7 8 284 38 

Dairy Husbandry 10 4 3 3 137 38 

Dairy Manufacturings 5 2 2 3 71 38 

Horticulture ^ 21 6 . 6 6-3 243 38 

Veterinary 10 3 3 4-3 105 26 

Farm Engineering. __ 26 7 5 5-3 249 38 

Poultry 8 3 3 3 93 38 

Bees 8 1.13 3 38 

Farm Management. __ 8 3 4 3 117 38 

Genetics 6 10 48 38 

Unclassified 33 7 2 260 38 

Table 29 shows the total number of hours of Table 28, 
converted into the per cent which each agricultural subject 
is of the grand total number of hours devoted to agriculture. 



Teachers of Agriculture 69 

Table 29 — Per Cent Which the Number of Hours This 
Student Devotes to Each of the VaiHous Agricultural Sub- 
jects is of the Grand Total Number of Hours Devoted to 
Agriculture. 

Subject Per Cent of Total 

Farm Crops 13.4 

Soils 9.2 

Animal Husbandry 13.6 

Dairy Husbandry 6.5 

Dairying 3.4 

Horticulture 11.6 

Veterinary 5. 

Farm Engineering 11.9 

Poultry 4.4 

Bees .1 

Farm Management 5.6 

Genetics 2.3 

Unclassified 12.4 

Minor Fractions .6 

Total 100 

In the case of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Husbandry, and 
Dairying, some institutions reported all three in one num- 
ber. This is probably due to the courses being undifferen- 
tiated, all being under the title of Animal Husbandry or the 
two titles of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Husbandry. 
When they have been so reported, a distribution has been 
made that corresponds to the distribution usually found 
where all three titles are in use. This will, doubtless, rep- 
resent better what the student actually studies in those in- 
stitutions than would be done if the hours were subsumed 
under the fewer titles as reported. 

Institutions filling the blanks in this portion of the ques- 
tionary, but leaving certain blanks unfilled, were counted as 
requiring no hours in that subject. 

Education Distribution. — In Tables 30 and 31 will be 
found the same- facts for the educational work of the pro- 
spective special teacher of agriculture as are shown for his 
agriculture in Tables 28 and 29. (Appendix B, Tables 
D — Continued.) 



l(/l' 


Mr 
iiiau 


.1/,.,/,- 


Mm, 


Total Colleges 
Hours Rcportiuq 


4 


,:> 







153 41 


3 


3 







113 41 


4 


3 







172 41 


2 


2 







88 41 


4 


;; 







153 41 


1 











47 41 


2 











84 41 



70 The Preparation of 

Table 30 — Maximum, Average, Median, Mode, Minimum, 
and Total Semester Hours in the Various Educational Sub- 
jects Required in, the Land-Grant Colleges of the Student 
Who is Preparing to Become a Special Teacher of Agricul- 
ture, Together irith the Numbei' of Institutions Reporting. 

Ihil-RS 
Ma.n 
SuhjCits III inn 

Psycholojiy 10 

Theory ( Principles, etc.) 9 

Metiiodolog-y 17 

Administration 13 

Practice Teachinig- 15 

History of Education_ 5 

Unclassified 12 

In these figures, as in those of Table 28, institutions re- 
plying to this i)art of the questionary were counted having 
no hours required unless the number of hours was given. 

From the totals in Table 30 the per cents shown in Table 
31 are made. 

Table .Jl—Per Cent Which the Number of Hours This 
Student Denotes to Each of the Educational Subjects is of 
the Total Number of Hours Devoted to Educational Sub- 
jects. 

Siihircis Per L'ciil of Total 

Methodoloo-y 21.2 

Practice Teaching 18.8 

Psychology 18.8 

Theory (Principles, etc.) 13.9 

Administration ; 10.8 

Unclassified 10.3 

History of Education 5.8 

Minor Fractions .4 

Total 100 

SECTION 2.— INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS 
STATED IN SECTION 1 

Table 23 — The Required Curriculum. Those familiar 
with the efforts to obtain the first supply of teachers to con- 
duct the teaching of agriculture in the high schools into 
which that subject was introduced a few years ago recall 
that it was quite impossible to obtain a supply of men who 
were adequately prepared for their work. If specific crit- 
icisms were to be made of their college preparation, the 
most outstanding ones would be that their agricultural 
studies had not been wisely distributed over the agricul- 
tural subjects in colleges, and their educational preparation 
was usually entirely lacking, and, when not lacking, was 
very likely to be of the nonfunctioning variety typified by 



Teacliers; of Agriculture 71 

the "History of Education" of those days. (Chapter I and 
college catalogs of that period.) 

If a man were a graduate, or near graduate, of an agri- 
cultural college, his pedagogical preparation or the sound 
distribution of his technical agriculture over the essential 
subjects was frequently not inquired into closely. 

Since those days the land-grant colleges have responded 
to an enlightened public demand, aided by an increased sup- 
ply (except for the temporary shortage due to the war) of 
available men, and have made great strides forward in 
their plans for the proper preparation in agriculture and in 
education of these prospective teachers. As can be seen by 
the facts in Section 1 of this chapter, the land-grant col- 
leges are furnishing to the students who are preparing to 
become special teachers of agriculture curricula adapted in 
the main to meet their needs, and are requiring such a dis- 
tribution as will give to them a fairly well-balanced prep- 
aration for their duties. 

The first fundamental is that this teacher shall pursue a 
college curriculum so arranged that when he has finished 
he shall not be a specialist in agronomy, or animal hus- 
bandry, or horticulture, or agricultural engineering, or farm 
management, or in any other subject limited largely to one 
field of agriculture, but that he shall have the fundamental 
courses in all the essential fields of work offered by the 
agricultural college. This is necessary because the agricul- 
ture which he will be required to teach in the better class 
of secondary schools includes work in all of these fields of 
agricultural knowledge. 

The curricula in operation in most of the land-grant col- 
leges of a few years past were formulated to produce spe- 
cialists in some one field of agriculture. (See catalogs.) 
The early teachers of secondary agriculture were of neces- 
sity chosen from persons so prepared. An examination of 
the catalogs of the time will give evidence that even after 
the demand for special teachers of agriculture had arisen, 
faculties seemed to think that students prepared as special- 
ists in some one field of agricultural subject-matter were 
thereby prepared to teach the agricultural subjects in sec- 
ondary schools. 

The extent to which sentiment in the land-grant colleges 
has changed from that point of view to one that advocates 
and provides a special and definite four-year curriculum 
intended to meet the needs of this special teacher of agri- 
culture by giving him the well-balanced preparation his fu- 
ture usefulness demands is shown in Table 23 and the par- 
agraph following. From this table it is plain that prac- 



71 The Preparation of 

tically all of the land-grant colleges have provided this defi- 
nite curriculum which is to be required of those who aspire 
to teach. 

Of the six not replying, two stated that the curricula 
were undergoing revision, and the other four are the states 
mentioned in the introduction as not having filled and re- 
turned the questionary. 

Tables 2U, 25, 26, and 27 — Cnrriculum Distrib^ition. The 
next most important curriculum question is that of the 
distribution of the student's work in the fields of technical 
agriculture, sciences, nontechnical subjects, professional 
subjects, elective, and military or physiciil training. While 
Table 24 shows a convincing distribution of the institutions 
throughout the various number of hours required in the 
different fields. Table 25 furnishes strong evidence of a dis- 
tribution which approximates a normal one. The averages 
and medians are identical in two subjects, vary by only 1 
unit in two subjects, and vary by only 2 units in two sub- 
jects ; while of the twelve instances of the averages and me- 
dians, eleven of them fall within the modal groups for their 
subjects, and the only one that falls outside of the modal 
group is one average that exceeds by only 1 unit the upper 
limit of its 10-unit mode. 

In Table 24 the tendencies and the range both show a 
high degree of uniformity, especially when it is known, as 
appears in the reports, that some of the institutions show- 
ing a low number of required hours in agriculture did not 
include a certain number of hours in agriculture not desig- 
nated by naming particular courses, but that were elective 
only in the sense that they were not specially designated, 
since they were required in the sense that the election must 
be exercised in agricultural subjects. 

Even though the various institutions were found to be 
in substantial agreement as to the distribution of the cur- 
riculum of this particular class of students, there would 
still remain the question of whether or not this is a well- 
balanced distribution. The answer to this question may be 
found in a comparison of Tables 26 and 27. 

When the United States Bureau of Education wanted to 
make a study of the requirements for graduation from the 
colleges of agriculture, it chose the agronomy curriculum 
as the type. (Jarvis, United States Bureau of Education 
Bulletin, No. 29, 1918.) 

This was a wise choice to make, since the agronomy cur- 
ricula of the colleges are less extremely specialized than are 
the other subject-matter curricula (catalogs of colleges). 



Teachers of Agriculture 7?> 

and consequently represent in better balance the constant 
elements. 

By reducing the hours of the various fields of study to the 
per cent basis, we can easily compare them with almost 
identical fields in the agronomy curricula of the land-grant 
colleges. 

The first evidence that the special curriculum which this 
prospective teacher is required to pursue is fitted to equip 
him for his work is that it requires the same number of 
semester hours of technical agriculture as does the curric- 
ulum provided for the agronomy man who is going to farm 
or to engage in agriculture as a technical science — viz., 
36.5 per cent. This is evidence that the land-grant col- 
leges, as a class, stand firm on the principle that if a man 
is to be a teacher of agriculture he must know a great deal 
of agriculture, and not simply a great deal of something 
else and a very little about agriculture. It shows their lack 
of sympathy with the argument that if a person knows 
well the sciences upon which agriculture relies, he can teach 
agriculture. The land-grant colleges insist that the man 
who is to teach agriculture in secondary and elementary 
schools must take as much college agriculture as does the 
man who is to farm or engage in some form of agriculture 
as a technical science. 

As the prospective teacher is required to utilize 12.7 per 
cent of his curriculum upon his professional educational 
work, the question arises as to where he is to obtain this. 
Very little can be obtained from the military and physical 
training, as the federal requirements for military training 
according to the regulations under the First Morrill Act 
(1862) (Chapter I) are practically an irreducible minimum 
in all curricula, though the tables show that he does obtain 
.2 per cent from military and physical training. The other 
12.5 per cent he must obtain from sciences, nontechnical, 
and elective subjects. Wisely, almost half of this (5.9 per 
cent) is taken from the electives allowed the agronomy stu- 
dent. This is a sound policy, because the curriculum of the 
prospective teacher being already a well-balanced one, the 
need for electives is not so great as is that of students 
specializing in a narrower subject-matter field. 

Since the agronomy curriculum usually provides for those 
students planning to become plant specialists, and fre- 
quently those specializing in soils, there is a greater neces- 
sity for requiring of them more work in the sciences than 
is required of the student who is to teach agriculture in ele- 
mentary or secondary schools. This justifies the 4.1 per 
cent which tables show has been taken from the sciences. 



74 TJie P)-eparafio)i of 

That the remaining 2.5 per cent must be taken from the 
nontechnical subjects, already sufficiently low in relative 
amount, is to be regretted. However, it is more a matter 
of necessity than of desire. The necessity that this pro- 
spective teacher shall be well grounded in agriculture and 
the sciences underlying it, and also in education, together 
with the impossibility of obtaining any more from the mili- 
tary, and the need for some leeway in the electives to cor- 
rect lack of balance due to incidents or accidents, seem to 
leave no other way open. Fortunately, some of his profes- 
sional courses are of such a nature that they supply in his 
preparation a portion of the general culture that may be 
lost by the omission of 2.5 per cent of the nontechnical work. 

With the agronomy curriculum of the land-grant colleges 
as a standard for the proper distribution of the agricultural 
college student's work among agriculture, sciences, nontech- 
nical subjects, electives, and military and physical training, 
we are safe in saying that the distribution of the above 
classes of work, plus the professional education work, as 
found in the curricula for the prospective special teacher of 
agriculture of the land-grant colleges, is well adapted to 
his needs. 

Tables :2S and :Jf) — DisfribHfioii of Auricidturc. That the 
land-grant colleges are in comparative agreement upon the 
distribution that shall be made of the work in agriculture 
among the various agricultural subjects is shown by the 
average, median, and mode columns in Table 28. 

Of the twelve subjects, these three quantities are identical 
in four of them, vary only 1 unit in five of them, vary only 
2 units in one of them, and are not significant in the other 
two. 

While the range seems rather large in some subjects — 
e. g., animal husbandry, horticulture, farm engineering, 
and veterinary — each may l)e explained upon one or more 
of three bases — viz. : 

F'h-st. To character of the agriculture, due largely to geo- 
graphical location. 

Second. To nomenclature — i. e., the grouping of courses 
of practically the same kind under different titles. 

Third. To the different values to be accorded to the 
semester hour as a unit in the different institutions. 

On the first basis Nebraska might as easily justify her 
four hours for horticulture as could Florida her eleven 
hours. 

On the second basis an institution that had no veterinary 
department would teach animal diseases in its animal hus- 



Teachers of Agriculture 75 

bandry department, thus increasing the number of hours 
required in that department. 

Again, on the nomenchxture basis "potatoes" might ap- 
pear in one institution in the farm crops and in another 
institution in horticulture. The same would be true of 
many other subjects, such as plant propagation and plant 
pathology. 

On the third basis it needs only to be noted that in 1917 
the range of the number of semester hour credits required 
for graduation was from 124 to 223, with the median at 
157. (Jarvis, United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 
1918, No. 29, p. 96.) 

The influence of this in creating high maxima is patent 
when it is seen that in every one, excepting the professional 
and elective, the maximum is found in an institution with 
a semester hour graduation requirement far above the me- 
dian. (Ibid, p. 94.) 

Taking these conditions into consideration, the degree of 
constancy of the values of these constituent portions of the 
curriculum provided in the land-grant colleges, as a class, 
for the prospective teacher of agriculture, is as great as 
can reasonably be expected. 

In Table 29, in which the per cent distribution of these 
ten agricultural subjects is shown, we have further evidence 
of the care with which those planning the curricula for this 
prospective teacher have accomplished their aim. 

The outstanding importance of the two fundamental sub- 
jects of agronomy (including soils) and animal husbandry 
(including dairy husbandry and dairying) is shown by their 
percentages — 22.6 and 23.5, respectively. Adaptation to 
meeting the necessity for "all-round" preparation is shown 
by the modest, but compulsory, requirements of 11.6 per 
cent in horticulture, 5 per cent in veterinary, 11.9 per cent 
in farm engineering, 4.4 per cent in poultry, 5.6 per cent in 
farm management, 2.3 per cent in genetics, and 12.4 per 
cent unclassified (but required). 

The great necessity for this wide and generous distribu- 
tion of the time of the student who is preparing to become 
a special teacher of agriculture over the various subject- 
matter divisions of agriculture is well known by those fa- 
miliar with the situation, and can be shown by a report of 
the commission appointed by the National Education Asso- 
ciation of the United States on the Reorganization of the 
Secondary Curriculum. In this report the main subject- 
matter courses designated as standard for the better class 
of high schools are given as farm crops, soils, animal hus- 
bandry (including dairy husbandry, dairying, and veter- 



76 The Preparation of 

inary), horticulture, farm mechanics (engineering), poul- 
try, and farm management. (Report of Commission of the 
N. E. A. on Reorganization of the Secondary Curriculum; 
Clarence D. Kingsley, Chairman, Boston, Mass.) 

The same report shows the necessity for the special 
teacher of agriculture being thoroughly trained in educa- 
tion by the work it sets for him to do in the high school, the 
grades, and the rural schools. It also shows the necessity 
for his being a man of practical farm experience by the 
plans stated for community work, laboratory work, work 
on the school land, and the conducting of home projects. 
In view of the need, the distribution of agricultural instruc- 
tion among the standard subdivisions of agricultural sub- 
ject-matter in the curriculum for special teachers of agri- 
culture has been wisely made in the land-grant institutions 
as a class. The degree to which the land-grant colleges 
recognize these needs and the degree to which they are en- 
deavoring to meet them is shown in part by the careful dis- 
tribution made of the contents of the curriculum of the 
special teacher of agriculture as found in Tables 24 to 31, 
inclusive, and the interpretations relating thereto. 

Tahh'H JO and .J l —Education Distribntion. That the 
characteristic of constancy in the number of semester hours 
of education required of the prospective teacher of agri- 
culture in the land-grant college is very marked, is shown 
by the correlation between the averages, medians, and 
modes in Table 30. Of the six sets of numbers (excluding 
unclassified), the variation of average, median, and mode is 
zero in one set and only 1 unit in the other five sets, while 
even in the unclassified the variation is only 2 units. This 
shows a high degree of constancy in the semester hours de- 
voted to the various professional subjects in this curriculum 
of this student. 

The range is not so gratifying; but a study of local con- 
ditions, if it could be made, might reduce the apparent ad- 
verse significance of this. For example, the fifteen hours' 
maximum of practice teaching is in a state where full col- 
lege credit is given for an entire semester's work which the 
prospective teacher does in a high school removed from the 
locus of the campus. If the student is to spend this amount 
of time this way, not much less credit could well be allowed 
him with fairness. 

In Table 31 the percentage distributions of the six edu- 
cational subjects, plus the unclassified, shows some interest- 
ing relations. The highest is held by courses in methods 
at 21.2 per cent, while psychology and practice teaching tie 
for second position at 18.8 per cent each. Theory, includ- 



Teachers of Agriculture 77 

ing principles, with 13.9 per cent, falls behind ; administra- 
tion, still further behind, with 10.8 per cent ; and history of 
education, a poor last, with 5.8 per cent. 

From an examination of the course descriptions in the 
catalogs one sees why the unclassified per cent is so large. 
There are many courses that are composite, containing a 
mixture of theory, methods, administration, and history. 
This is particularly true in those institutions which offer a 
very limited number of courses in agriculture education, 
and, therefore, include within one course topics that other 
institutions, differentiating more carefully, place in sepa- 
rate courses. 

This table seems to support the view that the agricultural 
education departments of the land-grant colleges tend to 
emphasize particularly those courses which aim to give spe- 
cific preparation to enable this student to function as a 
teacher. This is evidenced by the large percentage of time 
devoted to methods and to practice teaching, courses deal- 
ing directly with the actual teaching operations rather than 
with the general theories of education and history of edu- 
cation, which seem to be more remote from the immediate 
needs of the teacher. 

This conclusion would at first thought seem to be neu- 
tralized by the very high percentage of time devoted to psy- 
chology. To properly interpret the significance of this 
high percentage of psychology we must remember three 
very definite and indisputable facts. 

First, the very great degree to which psychologists have 
in the recent past demonstrated the scientific and also the 
practical character of the modern type of psychology ; 

Second, the attitude of mind which students in colleges 
of agriculture develop of placing a high value upon scien- 
tific sanctions for practical processes ; and from these two 
the 

Third, the desire of this student that his functionings as 
a teacher shall not only be practically sound from the stand- 
point of agricultural practice and of classroom practice, but 
shall also be scientifically sound from the standpoint of ag- 
ricultural science and of psychological science. 

From this point of view the three high-percentage sub- 
jects in Table 31 support the belief that the curricula of 
the land-grant colleges have placed with approximate cor- 
rectness the relative emphasis upon the various subdivisions 
of the educational part of the curriculum. 

Satisfactory as this distribution may appear, how do we 
know that it is the correct distribution? We do not. 



78 The Preparation of 

There are no unquestioned standards in the United States 
fixing the percentage which the professional educational 
subjects should constitute of the entire college curriculum, 
nor are there any standards fixing the exact distribution 
which should be made of various kinds of professional edu- 
cational courses within that field. 

Specialists in education are prone to magnify and special- 
ists in subject-matter to minimize the percentage of the 
curriculum that should be devoted to professional work. 
Specialists in particular fields of educational work are dis- 
posed to overemphasize the relative importance of their 
own specialties. 

The Federal Board for Vocational Education recommends 
that 10 per cent of the four-year college curriculum be pro- 
fessional (Bulletin No. 13, p. 25), and mentions certain 
subjects as suitable to be included, but does not make any 
percentage or time distribution of them (Bulletin No. 27. 
p. 21). 

The rules and regulations for certificating teachers in the 
various states make certain requirements (Updegraff. Har- 
lan, United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1911, No. 
18), and various associations and individuals have ex- 
pressed opinions. 

With such uncertainty or lack of standards, how can the 
work of the land-grant institutions be properly evaluated 
in this particular? Evidently not by comparison with 
fixed standards, since they do not exist. 

In lieu thereof probably the surest means of establishing 
the appropriate correctness of the distrilnition of the pro- 
fessional subjects is to be found in the circumstances under 
which the curriculum and the educational distribution have 
been developed in the land-grant institutions. 

In (Chapter II it was shown that the curricula were 
largely chosen by those who taught the education, fre- 
quently with the aid of members of the faculties and admin- 
istrative officers of the colleges of agriculture and education. 

In Chapter III it was shown that of the men teaching the 
education courses to these students, 81 per cent were born 
on the farm, 85 per cent were experienced in teaching in 
elementary or secondary schools, and 35 per cent had been 
educated in both agriculture and education to the equiva- 
lence of at least a bachelor's degree in each ; while 62 per 
cent of the land-grant institutions have at least one man on 
the education faculty who has this excellent double prep- 
aration, and that of the remaining 38 per cent of the insti- 
tutions, 14 per cent had one man or more in each institu- 
tion with at least the equivalence of the bachelor's degree 



Teachers of Agriculture 79 

in education, and also one man or more with at least the 
equivalence of a bachelor's degree in agriculture, making- 
a total of 76 per cent of the institutions that are provided 
with men specially prepared in both education and agricul- 
ture. 

When, in addition to these conditions, the close relations 
that have been shown (Chapters II and III) to exist be- 
tween the departments of agricultural education and the 
colleges of agriculture are recalled, is it not safe to conclude 
that curriculum distributions evolved under these influences 
are probably sufficiently sound to need no other verification? 
To put it affirmatively, a distribution of the professional 
studies in a curriculum designed to prepare special teach- 
ers of agriculture in the land-grant colleges which has been 
evolved by forty-one sets of men in as many different states 
who were largely reared on the farm, educated in the ele- 
mentary and secondary schools and in colleges of agricul- 
ture and education, experienced in teaching in elementary 
and secondary schools and in colleges of agriculture and 
education, and who are responsible for the proper prepara- 
tion of this teacher, is more likely to be adapted properly 
to the fulfillment of its purposes than is any distribution 
that might be supplied from extraneous sources. 

SECTION 3.— CONCLUSIONS DEDUCED FROM 
SECTION 1 AND SECTION 2 

The facts stated and the interpretations made in Sections 
1 and 2 point to the following conclusions: 

1. That the land-grant colleges, as a class, provide a 
specified curriculum which is required of those who are pre- 
paring to become special teachers of agriculture. 

2. That the distribution of this curriculum over the va- 
rious fields of knowledge described as technical agriculture, 
sciences, nontechnical, professional, elective, and military 
and physical training is adapted to giving to the prospec- 
tive special teacher of agriculture the broad and diversified 
preparation he so much needs. 

3. That this curriculum gives as full preparation in agri- 
culture as does that provided for the student who is to enter 
upon farming or upon scientific work in technical agricul- 
ture. 

4. That the distribution of the work in technical agri- 
culture among the various divisions of agricultural subject- 
matter is as constant as differences in nomenclature and 
diflferences in agricultural conditions justify. 

5. That the conditions under which the professional edu- 
cational work of this curriculum have been evolved war- 



80 The Preparation of 

rant the belief that in the relative portion of the curricu- 
lum devoted to the professional subjects, and in the per- 
centage distribution of the various educational subjects 
within the field of education, this curriculum is as nearly 
correct as can be attained at this time. 

The foregoing seem to warrant the general conclusion : 
6. That the land-grant colleges, as a class, are making 
sound provisions for the successful preparation of special 
teachers of agriculture so far as curricula contribute to 
such success. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE PRACTICE-TEACHING WORK OF THE PROSPECTIVE 
TEACHER OF AGRICULTURE 

Sectio)i 1. The facts regarding where practice teaching- 
is done, who does it, how much is required, what are the 
prerequisites, who sanctions entering upon it, who super- 
vises it, who constitute the practice classes, what is taught, 
and how the practice-teaching work is conducted. 

Sectio)! 2. Interpreting the significance of the facts in 
Section 1. 

Section J. Conclusions drawn from Sections 1 and 2, 

SECTION 1.— THE FACTS 

Where Practice Teaching is Done. — The questionary des- 
ignated several different kinds of schools in which practice 
teaching might be done, and ask in which of these the insti- 
tution practiced, and also asked that any other kind of 
school used be named and the plan described. 

The summary of replies is found in Table 32. (Appen- 
dix B, Table eI.) 

Table 32 — Kinds of Schools in Which Practice Teaching 
is Done and Number of Land-Grant Institutions Using 
Each Kind. 

Niinibcr of 
Kind of School Institutions 

SubcoUeg-iate courses at College of Agriculture 16 

Local High School 15 

Apprentice School (P. T. spends entire time for long period) 12 

Special High School at College of Education 8 

Near-by High School (not local) 6 

Near-by Vocational High School 1 

Freshman Class College of Agriculture 1 

Combining the single replies with those to which they 
are properly related and converting the number of insti- 
tutions to the percentage basis gives the relations shown in 
Table 33. 

Table -J-] — Percentage Whiclr Each Kind of Practice 
School is of the Total Number of Practice Schools. 

Kind of Sclioo! Fi-tccntaiic 

At College of Agriculture 28 

Local High School 26 

Apprentice School 22 

At College of Education 14 

Near-by"(not local) High School 10 

Total 100 

6 



82 The Pyeparatiou of 

The replies show that many institutions use more than 
one kind of school for practice-teaching purposes. (Ap- 
pendix B, Table El.) To what extent this is done is shown 
in Table 34. 

Table SU — Number of rustitutions Using the Given Num- 
ber of Kinds of Schools in Which to Do Practice Teaching. 

Number of Xniiihci- of 

Different Kinds of Schools Used Institutions I'sinj 

Using 4 kinds 1 

Using- 3 kinds 4 

Using 2 kinds 5 

Using 1 kind 33 

Not reporting 5 

Total 48 

Grouping these into institutions using only one and those 
using more than one and expressing the results in per cents 
give results shown in Table 35. 

Table -15 — Percentage of rustitutions Using Only One 
Ki}id of Practice School ajid of Those Using More Than One. 

I'sin,/ P'-'f Cent of Institutions 

Only one 77 

More than one 23 

Who Does the Practice Teaching. — The replies to the 
questionary regarding exemptions from practice teaching 
of those preparing to become special teachers of agriculture 
are shown in Table 36. (Appendix B, Table 2.) 

Table .J6~The Number of Institutions Requiring Prac- 
tice Teaching of Those Who Are to Become Special Teach- 
ers of Agriculture and the Conditions Earning E.remptions. 



keuun-ed 



XuHiln-r of 
I nstitutions 



Of all unqualifiedly '^4 

All but those showing successful teaching experience 6 

All but those showing successful agricultural teaching experience 2 

Not required 

Not reporting 6 

Total 48 

Converting these numbers into percentages, the results 
are shown in Table 37. 



Teachers of Agriculture ^2> 

Table 37 — The Percentage Which Each Type of Require- 
ment is of the Whole Number of Institutions Reporting on 
Practice-Teaching Req iiirem ent. 

Type of Rcqiiireincnt Per Cent of Jjistitutions 

Required of all unless exempt for experience 81 

Exempt for experience, general 14 

Exempt for experience, agricultural 5 

Total 100 

Whether the practice teaching required of the experienced 
practice teachers is the same in type as that required of the 
inexperienced is shown in Table 38. (Appendix D, Table 
E2.) 

Table 38 — Variation of the Type of Practice Teaching 
for the Experienced Teacher. 

Is Type of Practice Teaching Same for N nii}I>er of 

Experienced as for Inexperienced? Institutions 

Yes 11 

No 5 

Yes, unless agricultural teacher 1 

Not replying 31 

Total 48 

The few replies to the question of how the amount re- 
quired of experienced teachers differed from that required 
of inexperienced were as follows: Classes adapted to in- 
experienced and experienced teachers ; less apprentice .work 
required of experienced teachers ; for the inexperienced 
the supervisor plans more assignments ; more specific ; de- 
pends on experience to meet personal needs of student; 
more advanced. 

Whether the practice teaching required of the experienced 
practice teacher is the same in amount as that required of 
the inexperienced is shown in Table 39. (Appendix B, 
Table E2.) 

Table 39 — To What Extent the Aynoimt of Practice 
Teaching is the Same for Experienced and Inexperienced. 

Is .-1 mount of Practice Teaching Same for \ amber of 

Experienced as for Inexperienced f I iistitntions 

Yes 5 

No 11 

Yes, unless agricultural teacher 1 

Not replying 31 

Total 48 

Those institutions stating the way in which the amount 
of practice teaching for the experienced teachers differs 
from that for the inexperienced reported the following — 



84 The Preparatiov of 

viz.: Varies (4) ; half time; maybe for shorter time; less 
is required or advised ; decided on merits of individual case; 
depends on experience of teacher ; about 85 per cent of 
amount of inexperienced; approximately one-half; less ap- 
prentice and more advanced. Some state that no expe- 
rienced teachers have yet applied. This last condition 
probably accounts also for the large number who make no 
reply regarding the differences between the amount re- 
quired of the experienced and of the inexperienced practice 
teachers. 

Amount of Practice Teachhig and the Amount and Kind 
of Observation Required. — The questionary asked for the 
number of college credits which must be earned in practice 
teaching, the number of teaching exercises and of observa- 
tion lessons required in addition to the teaching exercises. 
The facts found in the replies constitute Tables 40, 41, and 
42. (Appendix B, Table El.) 

Table 40 — Number of College Credits {Semester Hours) 
Required in Practice Teaching and the Number of histitu- 
tions Making the Requir emends. 

Ci-eiiifs Rrqiiii-i'i! I nsfitiitions 

15 1 

8 1 

6 3 

5 3 

4 7 

3 14 

2 7 

1 3 

Table 41 deals in the same manner with the number of 
teaching exercises required. 

Table 41 — Number of Teac1ii)ig Exercises Required and 
the Number of Institutions Making This Requirement. 

Tcachimi !:.vri\ iscs Rcqiiirrtl X iniilwi' of I iisfitiitii/ns 

90 1 

80 2 

60 2 

50 2 

45 2 

36 3 

35 1 

32 1 

30 2 

24 2 

20 3 

15 1 

12 1 

10 1 



Teachers of Agriculture 85 

In the same manner Table 42 shows the number of ob- 
servation lessons required in addition to the teaching les- 
sons. 

Table 42 — Number of Observatioyi Lessons Required in 
Addition to the Teaching Lessons and the Number of In- 
stitutions Makiyig the Requirement. 

Observation Lessons Required Institutions 

50 1 

25 1 

20 2 

18 1 

15 2 

12 - 2 

10 3 

9 1 

8 1 

6 1 

4 1 

3 1 

Table 43 is a consolidation of the characteristics of Ta- 
ble 40. 

Table U'3 — Showing the Maximum, Average, Median, 
Mode, Minimum, Total, and Number of Institutions for the 
Credits Required in the Land-Grant Colleges of Those Pre- 
paring to Become Special Teachers of Agriculture. 

Items Reciuired Number of Credit Hours 

Maximum 15 

Average 3 

Median 3 

Mode 3 

Minimum 1 

Total 143 

Number reporting 39 

The extent to which the observation lessons were con- 
ducted in classes taught by expert, or at least competent, 
teachers is shown by the replies to be as follows: All les- 
sons in eleven institutions; two-thirds of them in three in- 
stitutions ; one-half of them in six institutions ; most of 
them in four institutions. This shows 100 per cent of the 
institutions conducting from one-half to all of these obser- 
vation lessons in classes taught by experienced teachers. 
Of the twenty-six institutions reporting definitely, the num- 
ber of observation lessons that were conducted in classes 
taught by their fellow teachers, one-half was reported by 
five institutions, one-third by four, few by five, none by 
twelve. Those definite or not reporting numbered twenty- 
two. 

Prerequisites for Undertaking Practice Teaching. — The 
questionary contained twelve double questions to ascertain 



86 The Preparation of 

the scholastic, physical, mental, and moral standards re- 
quired before the student was permitted to enter upon prac- 
tice teaching. This was intended to discover to what ex- 
tent these institutions have utilized definite, accurate, and 
officially required standards in addition to those general 
sanctions of doing passing work as a student, not being 
physically seriously incapacitated and having a sufficient 
moral standing to remain a member of the student body. 

Many replies to the questionary stated that they had cer- 
tain standards ; but when the standards were described, it 
was apparent that they had only the conventional sanctions 
that usually prevail in educational institutions in the United 
States and that doubtless prevailed in the land-grant insti- 
tutions that answered the same questions in the negative. 

In tabulating the replies, unless an institution gave evi- 
dence of having some more definite and oflScial requirement 
than the ordinary sanctions mentioned above, it was classed 
with those without special standards. 

The replies are so nearly unanimously negative that ta- 
bles are unnecessary for an understanding of the facts. It 
seems safe to assume in these questions that if the blank in 
the questionary were left blank it is equivalent to a negative 
reply, and the data have been so treated. (Appendix B, 
Table E4.) Regarding a scholarship standard, only three 
of the forty-four institutions returning questionaries seem 
to have such a standard — viz., Arkansas, which reports a 
grade of B ; Montana, which reports 85 per cent ; and Flor- 
ida, which reports a minimum of 75 per cent and an aver- 
age grade of 85 per cent. No information was obtained 
from catalog or other sources to show that this was a spe- 
cial requirement for entering upon practice teaching and 
not a general educational requirement of the college, though 
from the questionary replies it is to be understood as being 
a special requirement. The special standards in agricul- 
ture and in education are on about the same basis as is that 
of general scholarship and subject to the same interpreta- 
tion. 

The requirement for apprentice teaching as a prerequi- 
site to practice teaching is scarcely more general, being 
found in only three of the institutions, California report- 
ing no definite amount ; Minnesota, three months ; and Mis- 
sissippi, three weeks. The Minnesota outline explains that 
the three months is to be spent in apprentice teaching and 
observation work. The apprentice teacher aids the regu- 
lar teacher with board work, apparatus, quizzing, paper 
marking, laboratory and lesson materials, lesson plans, care 
of notebooks, reports, demonstrations, special assistance to 



Teachers of Agriculture 87 

students needing aid, physical conditions of room, and in 
emergency takes temporary charge of the class. 

The requirement of doing observation work before begin- 
ning is much more general, as it exists in twenty-nine of 
the forty-four institutions returning questionaries. The 
amount of time devoted to observation work in the institu- 
tions was mentioned in only a few of the replies, which 
show two hours, ten lessons, eighteen lessons, five lessons, 
three months, ten hours, three weeks, four lessons, three 
recitations, five recitations, and six weeks, respectively. 

The reports show practically no special physical or moral 
standards beyond the common sanctions already mentioned, 
though in moral standards New York mentions the requir- 
ing of references ; Michigan, testimonials ; and in physical 
standards Maryland mentions medical examination. Men- 
tal or intelligence tests are practically unused as a prere- 
quisite for entering upon practice teaching, excepting in 
Colorado, where the army tests are reported as being used 
for this purpose, and in Kansas, which reports planning to 
use intelligence tests next year, while North Carolina re- 
ports some tests in educational psychology. 

Practical teaching tests as a prerequisite for entering 
upon practice teaching are very seldom used. This is also 
true of special other tests, though Massachusetts mentions 
practical teaching tests as being used "at schools in which 
apprentice is working," and under special tests North Car- 
olina mentions "questionary similar to those used in voca- 
tional guidance." 

The data regarding "the classes from which students are 
eligible to undertake practice teaching" furnish the mate- 
rial for Table 44. (Appendix B, Table E4.) 

Table UU — Classes from Which Students Maij Enter Unon 
Practice Teaching. 

C!assi\t Frccini'iicy 

Freshman 

Sophomore 

Junior only 

Junior and Senior 1 

Junior, Senior, and graduate 9 

Senior only 8 

Senior and graduate 19 

Graduate only 

Not reporting 11 

Total 48 

(Summary) 

.Junior and above 37 

Senior and above 27 

Graduate 28 



88 The Prrpanitioii of 

For the purposes of comparison, Table 44 contains the 
data gathered in 1917 from 163 collegiate teacher-training 
institutions listed in the United States Bureau of Education 
Directory. (A. R. Mead, Eighteenth Year Book, National 
Society for the Study of Education, pp. 292, 293.) 

Table 4-5 — Shoiviug the Classes from Which Practice 
Teachers May Come in 163 Collegiate Institutions in the 
United States (Eighteenth Yea7' Book). 

Classes Xitiiihc-y of Institutions 

Freshman 1 

Sophomore 9 

Junior 28 

Senior 92 

Combination fifth year 9 

Graduate 24 

Who Sanctions Per mission of Studoit to Undertake Prac- 
tice Teaching. — The questionary replies to this inquiry are 
classified in Table 46 below, showing conditions in the land- 
grant colleges. (Appendix B, Table E5.) 

Table 1^6 — Who Sanctions Permis.^ion of Student to Un- 
dertake Practice Teaching. 

Persons Fiequency 

Professor of Agricultural Education 11 

Department of Agricultural Education 6 

Head Department of Agricultural Education 4 

Dean of Education 3 

Head Department of Agricultural Education and Supervisor of 

Teacher Training 2 

Instructor in Charge of Student Teaching 2 

Department of Agricultural Education and Local School Authori- 
ties 2 

Professor of Agricultural Education and Head of Department of 

Education 2 

Department of Agricultural Education and Agent of State Board 1 

Professor of Agricultural Education and Dean of Agriculture 1 

Professor of Agricultural Education and Dean of Education 1 

Professor of Agricultural Education and Dean 1 

Professor of Agricultural Education and Director 1 

Professor of School Supervision 1 

Not reporting 10 

Total 48 

(Summary) 

Persons in Department of Agricultural Education only 23 

Same persons jointly with others 9 

Total 32 

Dean of Education 3 

Grand total replies 35 



Teachers of Agriculture 89 

Again to make possible a comparison between the prac- 
tices in the land-grant colleges and those in collegiate in- 
stitutions in general in the United States, the table com- 
piled by Mead (Eighteenth Year Book Society for the Study 
of Education, p. 311) is given in Table 47. 

Table U7 — Who Sanctions Practice Teacher in Colleges in 
General. 

Person Sanctioning Frequency 

Head of Department of School 74 

Instructor in Education 29 

Principal of Training School 36 

Regular Teacher 14 

Superintendent of Schools 27 

Board of Education 5 

President of College 11 

Head of Collegiate Department 35 

Instructor in Collegiate Department 13 

Other persons 13 

Who Acts as Critic of the Practice Teaching. — In this 
part of the questionary an effort was made to furnish op- 
portunity to designate carefully the exact relationships of 
the critic to the institutional organization. 

The extent to which the persons doing practice teaching 
were a part of the various college administrative units is 
shown in Table 48. (Appendix B, Table E5.) 

Table 48 — Who Acts as Critic Teacher of the Students 
Preparing to Become Special Teachers of Agriculture While 
in the Land-Grant Colleges. 

Person Acting is Xinnher of Institutions 

Metnber of Staff of in Which They Act 

Alone With Others Total 

Agricultural Subject-Matter 3 3 

General Education 16 7 

Agricultural Education 14 15 29 

Training School 12 12 

Agriculture and General Education 

Agriculture and Agricultural Education 3 3 

Agriculture and Training School Oil 

General Education and Training School Oil 

General Education and Agricultural Education 2 5 7 

Agricultural Education and Training School __ 2 3 5 

Not replying 10 

The total number of persons who supervise the practice- 
teaching work of these students and the number of institu- 
tions utilizing the different number of persons for that pur- 
pose are shown in Table 49. (Appendix B, Table E5.) 



90 The Pfcparatio)! of 

Table 49 — Showing the Number of Institutions Employ- 
ing the Different Number of Persons in the Supervision of 
Praetiee Teaching of the Students Preparing in the Land- 
Grant Colleges to Become Special Teachers of Agriculture. 

Einfloyiiui Xiinthcy of I itstitiitions 

5 persons 2 

4 " 1 

3 " 5 

2 " 13 

1 " 12 

Not replying 15 

Table 50 — Maximum, Arerage, Median, Mode, and Min- 
imum Total and Nuntber Reporti)ig of Table 49. 

Maximum 5 

Average 2 

Median 2 

Mode 2 

Minimum 1 

Total 66 

Reporting 33 

In a further effort to learn whether the supervision of 
practice teaching, the critic work, is in the charge of those 
making a specialty of training the teacher in the technique 
of his teaching or of those whose interests were mainly in 
other fields, such as subject-matter, a request was made in 
the questionary for a report on the amount of time each 
critic devoted to practice teaching and the nature of the 
work to which he devoted the remainder of his time. (Ap- 
pendix A.) 

Of the forty-four institutions filling some parts of the 
questionary, only sixteen in^stitutions attempted to furnish 
this information. This information is tabulated in Table 
51. (Appendix B, Table E6.) 



Teachers of Agriculture 



91 



Table 51 — histitution 
Each Critic Devoted to 
Other Duties. 



s. Fractional Part of the Time of 
Practice, and Character of Critics' 



Institution Critic 

Georgia A 

B 

Illinois A 

B 
C 
D 

Iowa A 

Kentucky A 

Louisiana A 

Michigan A 

Minnesota A 

B 
C 

Mississippi A 

New Mexico A 

Ohio A 

B 

C 

Pennsylvania A 

B 



!■ ruc- 
tion 

Vz 
all 

'A 

1 

2-5 

1/4 
all 
% 
Vz 

Vs 
1-3 

V^ 
1/4 



Other Duties 

Improving teachers in service 

Senior Courses in Agriculture 

Senior Courses in Agriculture 

Senior Courses in Agriculture 

Senior Courses in Agriculture 

Special Methods 

Educational Psychology and State Super 

vision 
Subjects in Agricultural Education 

Methods 

Visual Instruction 

Courses in Agricultural Education 

High-School Agricultui'e 

Education 

1/0 Teaching and % Project and Commu- 
nity Work 

1/2 Teaching and ^/^ Project and Commu- 
nity Work 

1/2 Teaching and Vz Project and Commu- 
nity Work 

S V\ Training Teachers in Service 

i % Agricultural Education in College 

Same as A 

Education Courses 

Education Work 

Agricultural Education Teaching- 
Technical Agriculture 

Teaching Agricultui'al Education and Su- 
pervising Teachers in Service 

Same as A 

Teaching Agriculture in High School 

Teaching and State Supervision 

Same as A 

Teaching in Training School 

Teaching Agricultural Education and 
Training in Service 

Teaching Agricultural Education and 
Agronomy 

Teaching Agricultural Education and 
Teaching Animal Husbandry 

Administering High School 

Whom the Practice Teacher Teaches. — The composition 
of the classes which the practice teacher observes was well 
reported in the questionaries, and the total of each kind is 
given in Table 52. (Appendix B, Table E7.) 



South Carolina. _ 


A 


1-3 




B 


Vz 


Texas 


A 


Vz 




B 


V4 


Virginia 


A 


1-5 




B 


1-5 




C 


V4 


West Virginia 


A 


1-6 




B 


Vs 




C 


\/ 


Wisconsin 


A 


Ys 




B 


y^ 




C 


Vs 




D 


1-16 



92 Thf Preparatio)! of 

Table 5.2—Shoivi)ifi the Coriiposition of Classes Used for 
Obserrhtg a)id the Nunibe)- of riistitutions Using Eaeh Kind. 

t7(/.v,v i'oiiif^Dscil of Xiniihcy of I iistifiitions 

Elementary pupils 5 

Secondary pupils 36 

Fellow practice teachers 17 

Other college students 6 

Equally full replies were received regarding the compo- 
sition of the classes which the practice teacher teaches. 
(Appendix B, Table E7.) This is shown in Table 53. 

Table 5S — Showing the Composition of Classes Which the 
Practice Teacher Teaches. 

Class Composi'il of Numhcr of Institutions 

Elementary pupils 3 

Secondary pupils 35 

Fellow practice teachers 6 

Other college students 4 

Does the Practice Teacher Teach Agriculture? — In re- 
sponse to this question, all institutions answering this por- 
tion of the questionary (36) replied "Yes," of which num- 
ber five added that at times he may also teach related sci- 
ences. (Appendix B, Table E8.) 

What Ag)'iculture Does the Practice Teacher Teach? — 
The replies, when classified as in Table 54, show the fre- 
quency of the most important subdivisions. (Appendix B, 
Table E8.) 

Table 5h — Whut Agriculture the Practice Teacher 
Teaches. 

.Subject Xuiiihcr of Institutions 

Agronomy 22 

Horticulture 18 

Animal Husbandry 16 

Poultry 12 

Farm Management 5 

Farm Engineering 3 

Institutions replying definitely as above 25 

Institutions replying indefinitely 6 

Institutions not replying 17 

How Mani/ Agricultural Subjects Must the Practice 
Teacher TeacJi? — Replies to this question were made by 
twenty-five institutions, of which seventeen said in one sub- 
ject, seven in two subjects, and one in five subjects (Appen- 
dix B, Table E8) ; while the twenty-one institutions report- 
ing on the number of subjects in which the student usually 
taught showed nine institutions in which he taught one sub- 
ject, eleven in which he taught two subjects, and one in 
which he taught five subjects (Appendix B, Table E8). 



Teachers of Agriculture 93 

Who Decides in What Subjects the Practice Teacher Shall 
Teach? — Of the twenty-one institutions replying, fourteen 
showed this authority was placed in the hands of the mem- 
ber or members of the department of agricultural education, 
while the other seven were scattered (Appendix B, Table 
8) as follows — viz.: Two to ''the practice teacher and the 
critic," and one each "course of study," "program," "su- 
pervisor and local teacher," "dean of agriculture and pro- 
fessor of agricultural education," and "school where work 
is done." 

Determination of General Content of Course Taught by 
the Practice Teacher. — In response to the inquiry as to who 
determines the general content of the course taught by the 
practice teacher, seventeen institutions designated the per- 
son or persons in the department of agricultural education 
in charge of the practice teaching as having this authority. 

No other one authority approached this in number, the 
nearest approach being the instructor in charge of the sec- 
ondary course, which was reported by three institutions. 

Two institutions reported the teacher who was in charge 
of the technical subject-matter, and two others that it was 
determined by the state course of study. The other thir- 
teen were scattered, one each among many different com- 
binations, representing peculiar local systems of organiza- 
tion. (Appendix B, Table E9.) 

Determinatioii of the Content of the Daifs Lesson. — 
These replies showed a strong tendency to center at two 
points, the teacher in charge being reported from thirteen 
institutions, and the teacher in charge in conjunction with 
the student teacher reported by the same number of institu- 
tions ; while the nearest approach to these was a combina- 
tion of student teacher, teacher in charge, and critic teacher, 
reported by three institutions. The remaining five were 
scattered. 

Who Make the Lesson Plans. — The information as to the 
distribution of lesson-plan making between the student 
teacher and the critic teacher are shown in Table 55. 

Table 55 — Lesson-Plan Makers. 

Lesson Plans arc Made by Number of fnsfitutions 

Practice teacher, only 8 

Critic teacher, only 

Both 26 

The informtaion showing who observes the practice 
teacher teach and who criticizes his teaching are shown in 
Table 56. 



94 The Preparation of 

Table 56 — Who Watches the Practice Teacher Teach and 
Who Criticizes His Teaching. 

N umber of Institutions 
Watches Criticizes 

Practice Practice 

Teaclur Teacher 

Fellow practice teachers 24 21 

Critic teacher 34 36 

Both 24 21 

Others 14 9 

Kinds of Conferences on Practice Teaching. — The num- 
ber of institutions utilizing the various kinds of conferences 
is shown in Table 57. (Appendix B, Table E9.) 

Table 57 — Kinds of Conferences Used ivith Practice 
Teachers. 

Kinds Xuinbcr of Institutions 

General 29 

Individual 34 

Before class (recitation) 23 

After class (recitation) 28 

Institutions reporting 36- 

SECTION 2.— INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1 

Tables 32 and SS — Kinds of Schools in Which Practice 
Teaching is Done. — These tables reveal that 42 per cent of 
the institutions do practice teaching in schools at the insti- 
tution, of which two-thirds (28 per cent) are at the college 
of agriculture and one-third (14 per cent) at the college of 
education. The next in order of importance as a place for 
practice teaching is at the local public high school (26 per 
cent), which ranks below the number of college of agri- 
culture schools, but above the number of college of educa- 
tion high schools. Close to this is the use of apprentice 
schools — that is, where students work continuously for a 
somewhat extended period as helpers to the regular teach- 
ers (22 per cent) ; while the school ranking lowest is the 
near-by, but not local, high school. The 42-per-cent insti- 
tutional secondary schools have distinct advantages in con- 
venience, agricultural equipment, and atmosphere, and, 
when located at the college of agriculture, of a student body 
specially interested in the subject. However, they lack 
some of the normal characteristics of a village, town, or 
country high school, with its agricultural surroundings and 
constituency and its opportunities for practice in those 
forms of teaching that are outside of the school buildings 
and dependent upon the presence of an actual farming com- 
munity. 

In attempting to approximate ideal conditions for prac- 
tice teaching, most institutions find themselves in a di- 



Teachers of Agriculture 95 

lemma, the horns of which are difficulty of administration 
and abnormality of conditions. If the institutional school 
plan is chosen, it has all the conveniences of ease of ar- 
ranging the practice teachers' programs, the possibility of 
the student continuing his other studies, the continuity of 
living conditions for practice teachers and critics, the pos- 
sibility of the critic teaching other courses also, the utiliza- 
tion of several members of the faculty for critic work while 
all carry other courses, and the economy to the institutions 
and the students and the critics in both time and money. 

If the plan of utilizing a more remote high school in a 
rural community is chosen, it has the advantages of typical 
pupils, equipment, school program, community and official 
relationships. 

In most institutions it is practically impossible to take 
advantage of all of the benefits of both plans, though some 
institutions are giving the student part of his practice un- 
der one plan and part under the other, as will be shown sub- 
sequently. 

The degree to v/hich an institution can obtain the largest 
share of the benefits of both plans, with the smallest share 
of the disadvantages of both, depends upon local conditions, 
such as curricula, location of schools, and conveniences of 
travel, and also upon the ingenuity of those in charge of 
the administration of agricultural education and the extent 
to which institutional officers and public-school officers are 
willing to cooperate with them. 

That some schools have succeeded in obtaining many of 
the benefits of more than one plan is shown by the data in 
Tables 34 and 35. 

Table 3 J/. — Number of Kinds of ScJiools in Whicli Insti- 
tutioiis Do Practice Teaching. In this table it is seen that 
almost one-fourth of the schools replying report practice in 
more than one kind of school, while almost one-eighth prac- 
tice in three or more kinds of schools. From this it seems 
that an effort is being made to solve this problem by try- 
ing the various possibilities. 

Tables 36 and 37 — Who Does Practice Teaching. From 
these tables it is plain that of all the institutions replying, 
none excuse the prospective special teacher from practice 
teaching, excepting that eight institutions (19 per cent) 
may excuse him if he has had successful teaching expe- 
rience, though one-fourth of these require that his expe- 
rience must have been in teaching agriculture. This prac- 
tically universal insistence that the special teacher of 
agriculture shall have had experience in teaching, either 
actual or under supervision, before he is recommended as 



96 The Preparation of 

prepared to enter upon the actual teaching of agriculture, 
is evidence that the land-grant colleges are endeavoring to 
prepare this student in a practical manner for his duties 
as a teacher of agriculture. 

Tables 38 and 39 — Variation i)i Praetice Teachinq for 
Experienced. That some progress has been made in differ- 
entiating the amount and character of the practice teaching 
required of the experienced and inexperienced teachers ap- 
pears in Tables 38 and 39. Assuming negative replies from 
those not reporting, it is evident that very few institutions 
have yet endeavored to make any material differentiation 
in either the amount or character of the practice teaching 
done by experienced students. This is confirmed by some 
in the statement that no experienced teachers had yet pre- 
sented themselves for this work. 

Some intelligent efforts to establish bases of differentia- 
tion in type are found in the replies from Alabama, Illinois, 
Minnesota, Mississippi. Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming, as 
quoted below Table 38, and in amount in the quotations 
from Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
West Virginia, and Wyoming, shown in the paragraph fol- 
lowing Table 39. 

The conclusions deducible from these tables are that up 
to the present only a few of the institutions exempt any 
students from practice teaching; but of those requiring 
experienced teachers to take practice teaching, there are a 
few who are endeavoring to adapt the kind and amount to 
the need of this experienced student on the basis of his ex- 
perience. 

Tables M), .U, J,2, and .^3 — Antonnt of Practice Teaching 
a}id Observation. For purposes of discussion, Table 43 fur- 
nishes the basis of the reply to the question of the amount 
of practice teaching required. While the range is very 
wide, extending from a minimum of one hour to a maxi- 
mum of fifteen hours, as measured in semester-hour credit, 
that the institutions are in substantial agreement as to the 
proper number of credit hours is shown by the entire coin- 
cidence of the medians, averages, and modes at three hours 
with thirty-nine institutions reporting. There is much 
greater divergence, however, in the number of teaching ex- 
ercises which the student is required to conduct in order 
to earn these hours of credit. Neither is this table (41) 
nor in the one showing the number of observing exercises 
required (42) is there any central tendency apparent. 
From this it is easily inferred that there is a strong ten- 
dency in the land-grant colleges for the number of college 
credits to be earned by practice teaching to center about 



Teachers of Agriculture 97 

three semester hours, though there is apparently no ten- 
dency as yet to approach a center in the number of teach- 
ing exercises to be conducted by the practice teacher nor 
in the number of teaching exercises which he is required to 
observe. 

Table Uh — Kinds of Teaching Ohscrocd. In the kinds of 
teaching which the prospective teacher observes distin- 
guished as those taught by expert or superior teachers and 
those taught by fellow practice teachers, the institutions 
are more fully committed to a policy, since 100 per cent of 
them require from one-half to all of the observation lessons 
to be in classes taught by the experienced teachers. 

Of the twenty-six institutions reporting the number of 
lessons observed in classes taught by fellow practice teach- 
ers also, nearly half of them said "None," while the other 
approximate half reported from a few to one-half. Though 
there are certain gains in having prospective teachers ob- 
serve each other's work, the land-grant institutions are on 
the safe side in requiring most of the observing to be done 
in classes taught by superior teachers. 

Prerequisites for Practice TeacJiing. — The purpose of 
this portion of the questionary was to discover the extent 
to which the land-grant colleges had put into operation, as a 
prerequisite to practice teaching, absolute, definite, official 
standards as prerequisites in addition to the conventional 
sanctions usually found in all teacher-training institutions. 
The facts show that while the conventional sanctions are 
probably being observed, very little is being done in requir- 
ing special, official, positive, and definite requirements re- 
garding scholarship, physical, moral, mental, or other tests 
for fitness. 

From a study made in 1917 of 163 colleges in general 
engaged in teacher training in the United States, one might 
think that the general standard is higher (A. R. Mead. 
Eighteenth Year Book of the National Society for the Study 
of Education, pp. 308-310) than in the land-grant colleges. 
However, when the same tests are applied, the "require- 
ments" in colleges in general seem to be the same conven- 
tional sanctions that prevail in the land-grant institutions. 

The prerequisite of apprentice work is scarcely any more 
generally and definitely required. The prerequisite of ob- 
servation work is much more general, being required in 
twenty-nine of the forty-four institutions, though the num- 
ber of observation lessons required has not yet approached 
standardization. 

Tables UU (Did 45 — F)-o)7i WJiat Classes Practice Teachers 
Come. A comparison of these tables shows that the regula- 



'\S The Preparation of 

turn of the land-grant colleges in 1918-19 of permitting only 
students from the most advanced classes to enter upon prac- 
tice teaching is much superior to the regulations of the 
colleges in general in the year 1917-18. This is seen in 
the showing that no land-grant colleges permit any person 
under junior standing to undertake practice teaching, while 
in collegiate institutions in general engaged in teacher train- 
ing there were nine that permitted sophomores and one 
that permitted freshmen. 

Another strong point favoring the land-grant colleges is 
that 73 per cent of them require that the student shall be 
at least a senior before he may undertake practice teaching. 
This enables one to say with confidence that the standard 
of the land-grant colleges is superior to teacher-training 
colleges in general in the degree of advancement in the col- 
lege curriculum which it demands of those who undertake 
practice teaching. 

Tables AG and U7 — The Sauefionvig of Enter'uig Upon 
Practice Teaching. In Table 4G the preponderance of those 
connected with the department of agricultural education 
among those who possess the authority to grant permission 
to the practice teacher to teach is shown by his being the 
sole authority in 66 per cent of the institutions and joint 
authority in over 25 per cent more, making him a partici- 
pant in the sanctioning in over 91 per cent of the institu- 
tions. 

This shows again in a forceful manner the intention of 
the land-grant institutions to place this important function 
in the jurisdiction of those especially prepared and situated 
to administer it wisely. It is plain from Table 47 that in 
the year 1917-18 the education faculties in teacher-training 
colleges in general in the United States were not clothed 
with so great a degree of authority in this matter as were 
the land-grant colleges. 

Table 45 — The Critic Teacher. This tal)le shows that m 
twenty-nine of the thirty-eight institutions replying the 
critic teaching is done solely by a person or persons con- 
nected with the department of agricultural education. In 
addition to this, there were persons who were jointly mem- 
bers of the department of agricultural education and other 
departments in eleven institutions. 

It is also interesting to note that in only one institution 
is critic work permitted to l)e in the hands of any one who 
is not a member of a department of agricultural education 
unless he be aided by others who are members. 

This table shows again the predominance of the mem- 
bers of the agricultural education faculty in the practical 
and essential work of criticizing the practice teaching. 



Teachers of Agriculture W 

It also indicates a sound condition in that no critic work 
is allowed to be solely in the hands of teachers of agriculture 
subject-matter, and in only three institutions do they par- 
ticipate in the responsibility for critic teaching. 

Table Ud — Number Critics Emploijecl. That the land- 
grant colleges are well equipped with critic teachers is to be 
inferred from the fact that about 64 per cent of the insti- 
tutions have two or more critics, while about 24 per cent 
have three or more. We have no available data as to the 
number of students taking practice teaching the past year ; 
but from the fact that juniors, seniors, and graduate stu- 
dents were either in the army or the Students' Army Train- 
ing Corps (where they were not preparing for teaching) in 
the first semester and had not returned to college in normal 
numbers in the second semester, it is easy to believe that 
the land-grant colleges were equipped to conduct success- 
fully this work so far as the number of critic teachers was 
concerned. 

Table 51 — How Much Critic Work the Critic Does, and 
What Other Work He Does. Only one-third of the insti- 
tutions reported upon this point, the small number, doubt- 
less, being due to the war and the undetermined assign- 
ments of duties of faculty members, due partly to the war 
and partly to the nascent state of many of the departments 
of agricultural education. 

Of the thirty-four critic teachers reported by the sixteen 
institutions, two devote their entire time to critic work; 
one, three-fourths ; four, one-half ; two, one-third ; thirteen, 
one-fourth ; and eleven, less than one-fourth. 

Without doubt, war conditions are responsible for the 
fractions being so small; yet the small amount of the total 
time devoted by each to practice teaching is not a criticism 
when w^e know the character of the work critic teachers are 
engaged in during the remainder of their time. From Ta- 
ble 51 it appears that twenty are teaching courses in educa- 
tion, of which sixteen are delinitely stated to be agricul- 
tural education; seven are teaching courses in agriculture; 
three, doing state supervision; three, community work; 
tw^o, teaching high-school agriculture ; and one each, teach- 
ing in training school and administering high school. 

Of the forty-four activities, thirty persons are working 
with teachers during the remainder of their time ; nine are 
teaching agriculture; three are doing community and pro- 
ject work; and two are administering the training school; 
which, summarized more closely, means that thirty-five are 



100 The Preparation of 

in the teacher-training activities and nine teaching agri- 
cultural subject-matter. 

If the nine have been chosen for critic-teaching work 
because of their pedagogical abilities, as well as for their 
knowledge of the agricultural subject-matter, the contact 
they maintain with agricultural subject-matter will serve to 
vitalize their pedagogical work. It is noticeable that only 
three institutions have critic teachers who spend the re- 
mainder of their time teaching agricultural subject-matter. 

Tables 52 and 53 — The Observijig and the Practice Teach- 
ing Classes. These tables show that this prospective spe- 
cial teacher of agriculture has the opportunity to observe 
secondary classes in thirty-six of the states reporting and 
to teach them in thirty-five of the states. In addition to 
these he can observe elementary pupils in five institutions 
and teach them in three, while he observes his fellow prac- 
tice teachers in seventeen institutions and teaches them in 
six. He also has opportunities to observe in classes of his 
fellow college students in seventeen institutions and to teach 
them in four. 

As only thirty-eight institutions reported, it is plain that 
in 95 per cent of the institutions reporting this student ob- 
serves secondary classes and in over 92 per cent he teaches 
them. This shows that, so far as the kind of classes ob- 
served and taught is concerned, the land-grant colleges, as 
a class, are furnishing good facilities for observing and 
practice teaching for the prospective special teacher of 
agriculture. 

What He Teaches. — The fact that all of the institutions 
report that the practice teacher teaches agriculture, and, 
in addition that in five of the institutions he may also prac- 
tice teaching the sciences related to agriculture, is convinc- 
ing evidence that the land-grant colleges are furnishing the 
right kind of teaching experience for the prospective spe- 
cial teacher of agriculture so far as subject-matter is con- 
cerned. The teaching of related science in addition to the 
teaching of agriculture is sufficiently common in some 
schools to warrant its being used in practice teaching. 

Table 54 — What Agricultural Subjects Are Taught. 
Agronomy and animal husbandry constitute the first two 
years of the standard curriculum in agriculture for secon- 
dary schools. Unless the remainder of the curriculum be 
highly specialized, the agronomy would include soils and 
horticulture, and animal husbandry would include dairy 
husbandry, dairy manufacturing, and poultry. (Report, 
N. E. A. Commission on Reorganization of Secondary Cur- 
riculum, Agricultural Section.) Table 54 shows that in 



Teachers of Agriculture 101 

selection of agricultural subject-matter for the practice 
teaching, due attention has been given to the importance of 
the subject-matter in the curriculum which the practice 
teacher will be called upon to teach when he becomes a reg- 
ular teacher. The other influence determining the fre- 
quency of the various subjects is the greater adaptability 
of agronomy and horticulture to classroom procedure and 
to exemplifying the processes of teaching and of classroom 
management which the prospective teacher will encounter 
in his regular teaching work. 

The frequency table (54) shows that the land-grant col- 
leges in their practice teaching have placed great emphasis 
upon the subjects that are most important in the secondary 
curriculum and that are also superior for practice-teaching 
purposes. The conclusion is inevitable that the land-grant 
colleges are doing their practice teaching upon the best 
possible agricultural subject-matter topics. 

Number of Subjects the Practice Teacher Teaches. — That 
less than 25 per cent of the institutions reporting require 
the student to teach in more than one subject is unfortu- 
nate, but that over 50 per cent usually teach in two or more 
subjects is more satisfactory. This lack of a more widely 
spread experience that covers more agricultural subjects 
is, doubtless, more due to administrative obstacles than to 
lack of ideals. Since the term for which the critic and his 
practice teachers must take charge of the practice class is 
usually the same as that during which the student is sched- 
uled for his practice-teaching experience, and since the 
practice-teaching class usually devotes its time to only one 
of the divisions of agricultural subject-matter during that 
term, the practice teacher's student recitation program 
makes it difficult to give him the variety of experience which 
it might be desirable for him to have. 

However, what the practice teacher's experience may lack 
in variety because of these conditions may be fully com- 
pensated for by the continuity, coherence, and unity that 
are to be found in organizing and teaching an entire term's 
work in one subject. After this thorough experience he 
will be better prepared to reorganize the other subdivisions 
of agricultural subject-matter from the collegiate basis upon 
which he learned it as a student to the secondary basis upon 
which he is expected to teach it as a regular teacher. 

That the number of subjects in which the practice teach- 
ers teach in the land-grant colleges is on as sound a basis 
as is practice teaching in teacher-training collegiate insti- 
tutions in general is shown by referring to the investiga- 
tion of the 163 institutions before alluded to (Eighteenth 



102 The P)'epa}-atton of 

Year Book, p. 324), wherein it appears that the percen- 
tage in the general institutions that practice in one subject 
only is the same as in the land-grant institutions — viz., 50 
per cent. 

From these facts it is clear that while in the number of 
subjects in which practice teaching is done the land-grant 
colleges have not yet attained the ideal, still they have at- 
tained the same standards attained by collegiate teacher- 
training institutions in general in the United States, and 
have done so in a much shorter period of development. 

Authority Which Chooses the Praci ice-T eacJiing Sub- 
ject. — The predominance of the authority of the agricul- 
tural education faculty in this field again illustrates the 
tendency of the land-grant authorities to recognize the de- 
sirability of placing most of the responsibility upon those 
faculty members specially chosen for this work in order 
that the preparation of special teaching of agriculture shall 
be efficiently performed. 

This is further supported by the facts regarding the locus 
of the authority for determining the general content of the 
course to be taught. 

Content of the Day's Lesson. — The facts indicate that the 
critic teacher and the student teacher are the most active in 
choosing the content of the day's lesson. Doubtless if 
there had been space for explanation it would be found 
that in the institutions reporting this determination to be 
made by the teacher in charge his determination extended 
only to the choice of the main topic for the day, while he 
cooperated with the student teacher in determining the de- 
tails of the lesson. This interpretation is sustained by the 
reports showing who makes the lesson plans. 

If this be correct, it is apparent that the land-grant col- 
leges have given the necessary latitude to those engaged in 
teacher training in the matter of selecting the content of the 
lessons to be taught. 

Table 55 — Lesson Plan Making. The land-grant colleges 
make a better showing than do the collegiate institutions, 
as a whole, in the matter of who makes the lesson plans, as 
is shown by a comparison of Table 55 with the investiga- 
tion formerly referred to (Eighteenth Year Book, p. 315), 
as follows : 

Lesson Plans Mculc by 

Practici- 

Teaclu-i 

Per 

Cent 

In land-g'rant colleges 24 

In colleges in general 43 



Critic 


Both 


Per 


Per 


Cent 


Cent 





76 


27 


44 



Teachers of Agriculture 10.^ 

Since the purpose of lesson plan making from the stand- 
point of the practice teacher is to develop his ability to 
make lessons plans, as well as to teach from them, the pro- 
cedure of having the lesson plans made by the critic teacher 
only is open to condemnation. This criticism cannot be di- 
rected against a single land-grant college, while the pro- 
cedure seems to be followed in 27 per cent of the colleges in 
general of the United States engaged in preparing teachers. 

Without doubt, the most valuable results accrue to all con- 
cerned by the cooperation of the practice teacher and the 
critic in making the lesson plans. If this be true, the land- 
grant colleges far outrank colleges in general that are en- 
gaged in teacher training in the United States, as is shown 
by 76 per cent of the land-grant colleges following this plan, 
as against 44 per cent of collegiate institutions in general. 

Table 56 — Watching and Criticizing the Practice Teacher. 
There is little to condemn in the procedure of the land- 
grant colleges in the observation work of the practice 
teacher or in the criticizing of the practice teaching. All 
of the institutions reporting follow the custom of the critic 
teacher watching and criticizing the practice teacher, which 
is quite to be expected. In addition to the critic teacher, 
about two-thirds of the institutions reporting allow the fel- 
low practice teachers to observe and to criticize the prac- 
tice teaching, and a few institutions allow other persons 
also to do so. From this it would seem that the practice 
teaching in land-grant colleges is well utilized in these re- 
gards to cultivate poise on the part of practice teachers, 
to insure a full consideration of the character of the prac- 
tice teaching done, and to enable the practice teacher to 
improve his technique through a consideration of the prac- 
tice work of others as well as through his own. 

Table 57 — Conferences. It is apparent at a glance that 
in the holding of conferences with practice teachers upon 
the practice teaching, the land-grant colleges are utilizing 
generously this means of insuring that practice teaching 
shall not degenerate into mere rule-of-thumb experience. 
The figures in this table indicate that in order that each 
student may have the benefit of suggestions made by the 
other students and of some of the criticisms offered by the 
critic to others indivdiually and to the group collectively, 
twenty-nine of the thirty-six institutions reporting are 
found to use general conferences ; that in order to give each 
teacher that personal help which is more effective when 
given in private, thirty-four of the institutions use indi- 
vidual conferences ; that in order to be sure that the prac- 
tice teacher has made proper preparation previous to at- 



104 The Preparation of 

tempting to teach a lesson, twenty-three institutions hold 
conferences before the teaching is done; and in order to 
reap more fully the benefits of the experience acquired in 
teaching a lesson through considering it critically with an- 
other or others, twenty-eight of the institutions hold con- 
ferences with practice teachers after the lesson has been 
taught. 

From these considerations it would seem safe to say that 
the land-grant colleges, as a class, are utilizing to a high 
degree the conference as a means of improving the quality 
of their work in practice teaching for the special teachers 
of agriculture. 

In addition to these general facts and interpretations 
shown above, a more definite conception may be obtained 
regarding the trend, progress, and prospects of teacher 
training in the land-grant colleges through specific state- 
ments of the plans of several of the land-grant colleges as 
shown below. 

In Califoi-nia the high-school principal and the agricul- 
tural instructor are constantly supervising the apprentice 
teacher ; and, in addition, the head of the division and the 
supervisor of teacher training visit the men as often as may 
be necessary. One critic teacher located in the school of 
agriculture at Davis (many miles from the university at 
Berkeley) gives most of his time to the supervision of the 
practice-teaching work, and the head of the division of ag- 
ricultural education at Berkeley assists him in so far as 
it is possible. (Letter, F. L. Grifiin, and questionary.) 

Georgia requires in the course in "Apprentice Teaching" 
that ail students preparing to teach under the Smith- 
Hughes Act must do apprentice teaching in near-by high 
schools through the year equivalent to three hours per week. 
Seniors only are admitted. (Catalog.) 

In Massachusetts the "apprentice teacher serves as as- 
sistant to the head of a department in an approved school 
selected by the board of education for this purpose. Time, 
variable." "One apprentice teacher in one department." 
(Questionary.) 

In Mi)inesota, after three months of observation and 
apprentice teaching, during which the student does pre- 
scribed readings and discusses in conferences his progress 
in observation work and apprentice teaching, and during 
which a study is made of the teacher's personal equipment 
for teaching, he enters upon the second quarter (three 
months), in which he takes charge of a class under super- 
vision. Two months of this may be in the secondary school 
of agriculture at the college of agriculture, or in the uni- 



Teachers of Agriculture 105 

versity high school at the college of education, or in one 
of several available local high schools ; while one month 
is to be done in a typical rural high school under the direct 
supervision of the teacher-training staff of the college. 
During this quarter of practice teaching, conferences and 
professional readings continue, and observation work more 
advanced and specific is done. 

To give experience in the other responsibilities which 
the student is likely to meet in his regular teaching, prac- 
tice is also given in maintaining a typical "land laboratory" 
at the university farm. 

Typical home and group gardens are maintained on the 
campus by pupils of the neighborhood school. The con- 
ducting of these gardens is required of the practice teacher 
under the supervision of the critic teacher. 

The student teacher also has practice in supervising, 
under the guidance of the critic teacher, home projects car- 
ried on by boys of the neighborhood. In this the same 
forms and reports are used as are used in the vocational 
(Smith-Hughes) agricultural secondary schools of the 
state. (Plans for Teacher Training in College.) 

So far as possible the one month of work in the typical 
high schools has been done during the winter, when, be- 
cause of the special class of short-course students being 
present, the assistance of the practice teacher is of greater 
value, and the practice teacher has the double experience 
with the regular-course work and also the short-course 
work. In addition to the critic attention which the prac- 
tice teacher obtains from the superintendent and the teacher 
of agriculture in the high school, he receives criticisms from 
a critic teacher of the department of agricultural education 
at the college who visits the school for that purpose. Re- 
ports are received from the practice teacher and from the 
superintendent of the school where he does work. 

In New York "prospective teachers have been placed out 
as apprentice teachers for one-half year in selected high 
schools where agriculture is taught." 

"The apprentice teacher is placed in a school and given 
responsibility for one or two classes daily ; and, -in addi- 
tion, he assists with the general activities of the department 
of agriculture in the school. He is required to do a certain 
amount of professional reading and to make weekly re- 
ports to the department of rural education at the college of 
agriculture. Besides the supervision of the local principal 
and teacher of agriculture, his work is visited from time to 
time by representatives of the division of agriculture and 
industrial education of the state department of education 



106 Tliv Prcparatio)! of 

and by members of the department of rural education of 
the colleofe of agriculture. 

"To further strengthen the work in special methods, a 
practice and demonstration department of vocational agri- 
culture will be maintained in the high school at Trumans- 
burg. A member of the staff of the department of rural 
education has been placed in charge of the instruction in 
this department. Arrangements are made by which stu- 
dents taking the work in special methods are required to 
spend time in observation of the teaching and project work 
as it is conducted in the school. Apprentice teachers will 
be placed in the school as soon as normal conditions make 
this possible. In addition, the school is used for the pur- 
pose of testing out materials and methods of agricultural 
instruction. At present an experiment is under way which 
has as its purpose trying out the use of the school plot." 
(Plans for Training Teachers of Vocational Agriculture.) 

"In brief, this work in New York is to be done through 
cooperation with the state department. First, it is defi- 
nitely agreed that the teacher-training work shall be sep- 
arate and distinct from any supervisory work which has to 
do with administration. It will be our business only to 
deal with the technique of teaching. Of course, we will 
point out, with respect to this, needed equipment, but as- 
sume no responsibility for pointing out to the board or the 
superintendent the need of this equipment or urging its 
purchase. The relations with superintendent and school 
board will be only such as are needed to explain our rela- 
tion and to acquire such information as may help us in 
correcting faults on the part of the teachers. Should we 
note need of administrative action in our visits, we shall 
call the attention of the state supervisor to such things as 
we may note, doing it, however, in an entirely unofficial ca- 
pacity and l)ecause he has requested us so to do for his own 
benefit. 

"We are informed weekly of the itinerary of the super- 
visor and his assistant for the week. If necessary, this is 
wired to us. After each visit to agricultural teachers with 
whom we are concerned, the state supervisor forwards to 
this office a copy of the letter written by him on his return 
from the inspection trip. This letter reiterates the points 
made by him with the instructor on his visit. We have 
also the plan by which he submits any confidential sugges- 
tions or criticisms concerning the agricultural instructor 
or the local situation. These confidential communications 
will be placed on a special colored sheet that thev may be 



Teachers of Agriculture 107 

safely filed in our office. We shall make similar reports of 
our visits to the state supervisor. 

"It will be necessary for us to go any place where there 
seems to be special need of help, and also to visit as soon as 
possible new men starting in their work, spending as much 
time as possible and necessary with the beginner. Ulti- 
mately we hope to have one man engaged exclusively in this 
field work for a semester, alternating semesters with the 
other man in the department. 

"We shall expect to give personal advice ; to indicate lines 
of reading and study that will help offset particular weak- 
nesses of the men ; to require of them certain reports in the 
nature of lesson plans or similar plans of work for a week 
or a month ahead ; to assign readings and require reports 
on such readings from them should we see fit. In a gen- 
eral way, these are our plans." (Letter, W. F. Lusk.) 

In North Carolina the practice teaching is done at a 
near-by farm-life school, which is eight miles from the col- 
lege. Some difficulty is experienced because of the class 
schedule of the students. (Letter, Leon E. Cook.) 

In Ohio observation teaching follows the course in meth- 
ods, and that is, in turn, followed by practice teaching. 
There are three (four or five next year) vocational agri- 
cultural departments in high schools in rural communities 
not more than fourteen miles from the university, which 
are in charge of instructors in the agricultural education 
department, who meet the requirements as Smith-Hughes 
teachers and who are resident teachers in the particular 
communities where their work is given. Students prepar- 
ing to teach who pursue the course in observation teaching 
are required to leave one afternoon at least free from cam- 
pus duties. 

During the term each student must make ten visits to 
these schools and three to other vocational high-school de- 
partments in the state. Conferences of all observing stu- 
dents are held. Practice teaching of three weeks in one of 
these three schools, under the local teacher as a critic, is 
required in the practice-teaching course which follows the 
observation course. The school departments are all voca- 
tional, and are reached by electric railroads and automo- 
bile bus lines. (Letter, W. F. Stewart.) 

In Vermont use is made of one school about six miles 
from Burlington, connected by trolley. Another plan is to 
put the men out in the late spring and early summer of 
their junior year for work under the regular teacher. "In 
this way we can release the regular teachers for some 
summer-school work which otherwise they could not get, 



108 The Preparatio7i of 

as practically all of our men are on duty eleven months out 
of the year ; and if men look after their home project work 
properly, they cannot leave during the month of July and a 
part of August for summer-school work." (Letter, F. B. 
Jenks.) 

SECTION 3.— CONCLUSIONS DEDUCED FROM 
SECTIONS 1 AND 2 

The foregoing facts and interpretations point to the fol- 
lowing conclusions regarding the various phases of prac- 
tice teaching work in the land-grant colleges: 

1. That the land-grant colleges, as a class, have made 
available for practice-teaching purposes a sufficient number 
of schools to furnish fairly satisfactory facilities for this 
work. 

2. That the land-grant institutions, as a class, hold them- 
selves responsible for knowing that the prospective special 
teacher of agriculture can teach by requiring practice teach- 
ing of all and through trying to adapt it to the needs of 
experienced teachers by varying the type and amount ac- 
cording to the characteristics of the previous experience. 

3. That the land-grant institutions are in substantial 
agreement among themselves upon the amount of practice 
teaching to be done when measured in semester hour cred- 
its, but vary greatly regarding the number of exercises to 
be taught and to be observed. 

4. That the land-grant colleges, as a class, require that a 
majority of the observation exercises shall be in classes 
taught by superior teachers, but that some may also be in 
classes taught by fellow practice teachers. 

5. That the land-grant colleges, as a class, do not main- 
tain any special, official regulations regarding scholastic, 
physical, mental, and moral fitness for entering upon prac- 
tice teaching, excepting such conventional sanctions as are 
found in collegiate teacher-training institutions in gen- 
eral, including land-grant institutions. 

6. That a majority of the land-grant colleges require ob- 
servation of teaching as a prerequisite to practice teaching. 

7. That the land-grant colleges maintain a higher stand- 
ard than do teacher-training collegiate institutions in gen- 
eral in the degree of advancement in his curriculum re- 
quired of the student l)efore he can enter upon practice 
teaching. 

8. That the land-grant institutions place great authority 
in the department of agricultural education for sanction- 
ing the permission of the student to enter upon practice 



Teachevfi of Agriculture 109 

teaching, for doing the critic teaching, and for selecting the 
material to be taught. 

9. That the land-grant colleges seem to have a sufficient 
number of critic teachers to properly supervise the practice 
teaching. 

10. That in the land-grant colleges the critic teachers, as 
a class, are persons fully connected with the professional 
work of preparing special teachers of agriculture. 

11. That the land-grant colleges appear to offer excellent 
facilities for the observation of classes of secondary grade 
and additional facilities for the observation of elementary 
and college classes. 

12. That the land-grant colleges require the practice 
teacher to teach agriculture, and also in some instances per- 
mit him to teach the related sciences. 

13. That the agricultural topics taught by the practice 
teachers in the land-grant colleges are the best that can be 
chosen for properly preparing him to perform his duties 
as a regular teacher. 

14. That the number of subjects in which any one teacher 
practices is smaller than is desirable ; yet it is as great as 
exists in collegiate teacher-training institutions in general 
in the United States. 

15. That in the responsibility for making the lesson plans 
the usages in the land-grant colleges are superior to those 
in colleges in general that are engaged in teacher training. 

16. That in the land-grant colleges the observation work, 
criticism, and conferences of the practice teachers seem to 
be so utilized as to conduce very largely to proper prepara- 
tion for regular teaching. 

17. That individual institutions of the land-grant colleges 
are pioneering with apparent success in some features of 
practice teaching which bid fair to become more gener- 
ally adopted and to still further improve the efficiency of 
the preparation of the special teachers of agriculture in the 
land-grant colleges. 

These conclusions and the facts upon which they have 
been established seem to warrant the general conclusion : 

18. That the land-grant colleges are well adapted to the 
preparation of special teachers of agriculture so far as 
practice teaching can contribute to that end, since they 
equal or exceed the teacher-training institutions in general 
of the United States in the provisions made for successful 
practice teaching, as is shown by their approximating, as a 
class, high standards in most of the conditions upon which 
successful practice depends ; and in the few characteristics 
in which they are not so fully developed a few institutions 



no The Prcparatio)! of 

have pionered with success and are evolving procedures 
that appear to be adapted to further increasing the effi- 
ciency of the practice teaching in the land-grant colleges 
and that are destined to spread to the others as soon as this 
rapidly evolving teacher-training work has time to develop 
in them. 



CHAPTER VII 

TRAINING TEACHERS WHILE IN SERVICE 

Sectio)t 1. Facts regarding who trains the special teacher 
of agriculture while in service ; visits of college instructors 
and their reports ; teachers' reports ; correspondence 
courses ; reading courses ; conferences ; visits of teachers to 
other schools ; and teachers attending college part time. 

Section 2. Interpretation of facts in Section 1. 

Section 3. Conclusions from Sections 1 and 2. 

SECTION 1.— THE FACTS 

The brevity of the period during which the maintenance 
of agriculture as a subject in the secondary-school curricu- 
lum, requiring a specially prepared teacher, has evolved, has 
made it impossible to develop all the possibilities of teacher 
training in this field and equally impossible to standardize 
all those that have been developed. 

The numerous and important points of contact which the 
work of this new department of secondary education estab- 
lishes and the difficulty of fully preparing the special 
teacher for his duties in connection therewith during the 
period of his college course have caused agricultural edu- 
cation faculties to seek to further train their men after 
they have entered upon regular teaching in the secondary 
schools. 

The inauguration of state supervision of the teaching of 
agriculture in those secondary schools that are established 
through the state boards and the federal board created un- 
der the Smith-Hughes law raised the question of whether 
the teachers in service in a state were to receive their train- 
ing in service from the representative of the state board or 
of the state institution responsible for the training of agri- 
cultural teachers — the land-grant colleges. 

That training in service of those individuals who were 
originally trained in the teacher-training institution of a 
state is a part of the process of teacher training for which 
that teacher-training institution is entitled to expend 
Smith-Hughes funds has been determined by the Federal 
Board for Vocational Education. (Second Annaul Report 
of the Federal Board for Vocational Education, p. 150.) 

To discover the extent to which the land-grant colleges 
had developed this training in service work was the pur- 
pose of Section E of the questionary. The information so 
obtained constitutes the factual basis for this chapter. 



112 The Preparation of 

Who Trains the Teacher Who is in Service. — Whether 
the teacher in service is given additional training by a 
member of the faculty of the land-grant college, or by a 
member of the state supervisory staff (under the state 
board), or by one person representing both, or by two or 
more persons who are separate representatives of the land- 
grant colleges and of the state supervisory staff, and the 
extent to which these conditions prevail, are shown in Ta- 
ble 58. (Appendix B, Table Fl.) 

Table 5S — Who Trains in Service the Teachers Who Were 
Trahied Before Entering Service by the Land-Grant Col- 
lege Reporting and the Number of Institutions. 

Who Trams \' iimhcr of I nstitutious 

Member land-gvant colleg-e faculty 19 

Member state supervisory staff 14 

Same person member of both 15 

Different persons representing each 9 

No training in service being done 10 

Not replying 6 

How Representatives of Land-Grant College Facultij and 
State Superviso)-)/ Staff Cooperate. — The manner in which 
cooperation is carried out in those states in which the 
teacher training in service is performed by representatives 
of the land-grant colleges and the state supervisory staff 
may be seen from the following extracts from replies — viz. : 

By conferences, supervisor asks that a member of the 
faculty of the land-grant college be sent to assist teachers 
(Louisiana) ; faculty member works under direction of state 
supervisor of agricultural education — follow own graduates 
for a year (Minnesota) ; member of faculty works under 
state director (Mississippi) ; careful agreement as to du- 
ties and limitations of member of faculty (New York) ; con- 
ferences determine methods and policies, officers in same 
building, each reports visits to other (North Carolina) ; by 
mutual agreement state supervisors handle administrative 
problems, college man handles teaching problems (Pennsyl- 
vania) ; members of the teacher-training staff are used in 
itinerant teacher-training work (South Carolina) ; confer- 
ences and correspondence, supervisors have supervision and 
itinerant teachers teach methods (Texas) ; agreement as to 
methods, course of study, etc., frequent conferences, and 
keeping in close touch by correspondence (Vermont) ; 
monthly reports sent by teacher to professor of agricultural 
education, other reports to state supervisor, both visit 
teacher singly and together (Virginia) ; mutual agreement 
and cooperation — no written project (Wisconsin). 



Teachers of Agriculture 113 

Special Teachers in a State Not Prepared in the Land- 
Grmit College of That State. — The number of states in 
which there are special teachers not prepared by that state 
is shown by Table 59. (Appendix B, Table Fl.) 

Table 59 — Are There Special Teachers of Agriculture in 
Service in the State Who Were Not Prepared by the Land- 
Grant Institution of That State? and Number of States in 
Which There Are Such Teachers. 

Rcplviiui N\iinhcr of States 

Yes 35 

No 1 

Not replying 12 

Are Special Teachers Not Prepared by Land-Grant Col- 
lege Trained in Service by It? — The extent to which the 
land-grant college of the state extends its training in serv- 
ice to those not prepared by it is shown in Table 60. (Ap- 
pendix B, Table Fl.) 

Table 60 — Extent to Which Land-Grant College Trains in 
Service Teachers Not Prepared by It. 

Facility Member Trains Niiiiihcr of Iiistitiitio)ts 

Yes 21 

Yes, on request 1 

No 8 

No training in service done 10 

Not replying 8 

Instructor's Visits to Teacher in Service. — Table 61 gives 
the classified replies regarding the number of institutions 
in which the member of the faculty of the land-grant college 
visits the agricultural teacher at the latter's school. (Ap- 
pendix B, Table F2.) 

Table 61 — Does Instructor Visit Teacher i)i Latter's 
School? 

Repl\in<i Number of Institutions 

Yes !_: 30 

No training- in sei'vice done 10 

Not replying 8 

How Often Visits Are Made. — The frequency of the land- 
grant instructoi;'s visits to the teacher in his school is shown 
in Table 62. 

Table 62 — How Often the Land-Grant Instructor Visits 
the Teacher in the Latter's School. 

Ho'<e Often Xinnber of Institutions 

Biweekly 1 

Three weeks 1 

Monthly 4 

Quarterly 4 

Semiannually 4 

Not fixed — indefinite 12 

No training in service done 10 

Not replying 12 

s 



114 The PreparaiJon of 

How Long Arc Visits? — The length of the visits made are 
shown in Table 63. (Appendix B, Table F2.) 

Table 6'.; — LeiifjtJi of Visits of Land-Grant College Fac- 
iiltji Member to Teachers in Service. 

I.rii.itli of I'isit Xiiitibci- of I iistitntlous 

V:i to 1 day 3 

V2 to 1"/1' days 1 

% to 3 days 3 

1 day 8 

1 to 2 days 2 

1 to 3 days 3 

2 to 3 days 1 

1 day to 1 week 1 

Not fixed — indefinite 6 

No training in service done 10 

Not replying 10 

(Summary) 

3 days or less 21 

More than 3 days 1 

Indefinite 6 

Character of Help Given. — The character of the help ren- 
dered by the members of the land-grant college faculty 
when they visit the teacher at the latter's school is shown 
in Table 64. (Appendix B, Table F2.) 

Table (U — Charactei- of Help Given by Members of Land- 
Grant College Faculty When Visiting Teacher in Latter'a 

School. ii^-ip (;,.;.,.„ ,„ l,r:^,iia Tins llclf 

\uii>h.-r of Institutions 

Methods 9 

Demonstration teaching . 6 

Equipment 6 

Suggestions 6 

Outlines 4 

Projects 4 

Organization 4 

Lesson plans 3 

Constructive criticism 3 

Teaching 3 

Courses 3 

Conferences 2 

Laboratory work 2 

Organized teaching projects 2 

Plans 2 

Reports of other schools 2 

References 2 

Professional, technical, adjusting misunderstand- 
ings, discussion, recitation, practical work, 
texts, school farm, objects, illustration, outline 

professional reading, notebooks, devices 1 each 

(Sununary) 

Teaching operations 21 

Teaching plans 13 

Materials and equipment 6 

Administration plans 14 

Miscellaneous, general 5 

Indefinite, general 17 



Teacli'Ts of Agriculture 115 

Instructor's Reports of His Visits. — The degree to which 
the land-grant faculty member reports his visits for train- 
ing in service is shown in Table 65. (Appendix B, Table 
F2.) 

Table 65 — Number of Iiistitutious in Which Land-Grant 
Faculti/ Member is Required to Report Upon His Visits to 
the Teacher in Service. 

Rcfoi-t Miiiiihi-r of lustitulions 

Yes 26 

No 3 

No training in service done 10 

Not replying 9 

How Often Reports of Visits Made. — How often and 
when the visiting faculty member reports his visits is shown 
in Table 66. (Appendix B, Table F2.) 

Table 66 — How Often the Visiting Faculty Member of 
the Land-Grant College Reports Upon His Visits. 

How Often Reports Number of Institutions 

After each visit 14 

Monthly 6 

Quarterly 1 

Weekly 1 

Annually 1 

Indefinite 2 

No training in service done 10 

Not replying ' 1.3 

To Whom the Visitor Reports. — The different persons to 
whom the faculty member reports and the number of insti- 
tutions so reporting are shown in Table 67. (Appendix 
B, Table F2.) 

Table 67 — Officers or Departments to Whom the Faculti/ 
Members of the Land-Grant Colleges Report Regarding 
Their Visits to Teachers in Serrice and the Number of In- 
stitutions so Reporting. 

To U'lioni Report Xinul'er of I nslilntioiis 

State director or state supervisor 16 

State board or department 10 

Teacher-training department, land-grant college- 8 

Director of school 1 

Teacher of school 1 

Dean of education 1 

County superintendent 1 

No training in service done 10 

Not replying 12 

Nature of Report. — The land-grant institutions were 
asked to mention the main features of the reports which 
the training instructor made after his visit to the school of 
the teacher who was in service. These replies are reported 
in Table 68, below. (Appendix B, Table F2.) 



116 The PrepcD-atlon of 

Table 6S — Main Features of Reports Made by Training 
Instructors on Schools of Teachers in Service. 

Fcatiirrs ni Ri'forts Number of I )istltutions 

Recommendations and suggestions made 16 

Desirable features of work 6 

Undesirable features of work 5 

Character of work 5 

Needs 3 

Enrollment 2 

Projects 2 

Room 2 

Check former records, schedule, condition of lab- 
oratories, progress of teacher, routine in brief, 
special developments in detail, purpose, dura- 
tion, materials, methods, improvements, equip- 
ment, class work, field trips, county superin- 
tendent, board, lesson plans, strong points of 
teacher, weak points of teacher, attendance, 
opinion of superintendent, teaching (miscella- 
neous) 1 each 

Repoiis of Teacher to Instructo)'. — The extent to which 
the teacher in service is required to report to the teacher- 
training department of the land-grant college is shown by 
the results of the questionarv as tabulated in Table 69. 
(Appendix B, Table F3.) 

Table 69 — Number of Land-Grant Colleges to Which 
Teachers in Service Are Required to Report. 

Report RcqinrcJ Niuiihcr of Institutions 

Yes 11 

No -- — ^ 16 

No training in service 10 

Not replying 11 

Hoiv Often the Teacher Reports to the Land-Grant Col- 
lege. — The frequency with which the teacher in service is 
required to report to the land-grant college is shown in Ta- 
ble 70. (Appendix B, Table F3.) 

Table 70 — How Often the Teacher in Service Reports to 
the Instructor i)i the Land-Grant College. 

Reports- N'nmhcr of I iislitutioHS 

Weekly 2 

Biweekly 1 

Monthly 2 

Annually 1 

As agreed 1 

On request 4 

No training in sei'vice 10 

No reply 26 

Main Features of Teachers' Reports. — What the main 
features are of the reports which the teacher in service 



Teachers of Agriculture' 117 

makes to the instructor of the land-grant college cannot well 
be tabulated, but can be shown by the following excerpts — 
viz.: Nature of seminar work, daily record, work, enroll- 
ment, schedule, projects, character of teaching, condition 
of laboratories, plans and results of special features of the 
work previously agreed upon, school duties, project super- 
vision, community activities, daily schedule of work for 
month details, subject for day, method by which taught, ref- 
erences used. 

Corresvondence Courses Used for Training in Service. — 
A tabular presentation of this is scarcely necessary, as only 
one institution of twenty-eight reporting replied "Yes," 
the other twenty-seven replying "No." 

Reading Courses Used for Training in Service. — In this 
field the activities of the land-grant colleges are shown in 
Table 71. (Appendix B, Table F3.) 

Table 71 — Reading Courses Used b)j the Land-Grant Col- 
leges to Train Teachers in Service and the Number of In- 
stitutions So Using Them. 

Readivig Course Used Number of Institnfions 

Yes __1 5 

No 23 

No training in service 10 

No reply 10 

How Reading Courses Are Used. — The five states using 
them give the following as the methods of use — viz. : As 
rei^erences in projects; special improvement program; 
books, assigned ; suggested list of books for year ; books are 
suggested. In addition to these, one of the states not claim- 
ing to use reading courses requires one thesis each year. 

Conferences Used for Training in Service. — The kinds of 
conferences that are used for training in service and the 
number of institutions utilizing each kind are shown in 
Table 72. (Appendix B, Table F4.) 

Table 72 — Kinds of Conferences Used by the Land-Grant 
Colleges for Training in Service and the Number of Insti- 
tutions Using Each Kind. 

Number of Institutions 
Kinds bv Periodicitv (leneral Conference Groups or Local 

Annual" _' 18 3 

Semiannual 3 3 

Quarterly 2 1 

Occasional 3 2 

Indefinite 4 3 

No training in service 10 10 

No reply : 8 

A request was not made for a designation of the group 
conferences. Had this been done, probably more definite 
returns would have been available on this point. 



118 The Preparation of 

Vhits of Teacher in Service to Other ScJiools. — The ques- 
tion in the questionary was: "Do the teachers visit other 
public-school departments of agriculture with the teacher- 
training instructor?" The replies are found in Table 73. 
(Appendix B, Table F4.) 

Table 7S — Number of Iiisfitiitioiis WliicJi, as a Part of 
the Teacher Traininf/, Conduct Visits to Other Public- 
School Departments of Agriculture for Teachers in Service. 

Cou.hirt I'isils Niiinhrr of I iistit iitioit.i 

Yes 9 

No 18 

No training in service 10 

No reply 11 

Hou^ Visits Are Made. — Seven of the nine colleges which 
make such visits reported as follows — viz. : Men arrange 
visits; conferences held at school in term; on advice of in- 
structor; one day each year, at least, require each teacher 
to visit two other schools each year ; in high-school depart- 
ments near the land-grant college ; one day in school strong 
where visiting teacher is weak. 

Are Teachers in Service Trained bii Requiri)ig Them to 
Attend College During Year? — The extent to which train- 
ing in service takes the form of college attendance is shown 
in Table 74. (Appendix B, Table F4.) 

Table 74 — Requiring Teachers i)i Service to Attend Col- 
lege During the Year. 

Ki-qiiucl to .MtctuI Colic. h- Xinnlu-r of Stcilc.^ 

Yes 13 

No 16 

No training' in service 10 

No reply 9 

How Long Attend College Each Year. — The length of 
time the teacher in service is required to attend college dur- 
ing the year and the number of states making the several 
requirements are found in Table 75. (Appendix B, Table 
F4.) 

Table 75 — Length of Time the Teacher in Service is Re- 
quired to Attend College During the Yea)- and the Number 
of States Making the Requirement. 

lA-n.jlh of Time Shnuhcr of Stales 

2 weeks 2 

4 weeks 5 

6 weeks 6 

No training- in service r- 10 

No reply 25 



Teachers of Agriculture 11*> 

What Time of the Year Teacher in Service Attends Col- 
lege. — Of those requiring the teacher in service to attend 
college, the replies vary somewhat as to the exact time, as 
shown in Table 76, though the summary shows substantial 
agreement. (Appendix B, Table F4.) 

Table 76 — Time When Teacher in Service Attends Col- 
lege and Nuj)iber of Institutions Attended at tJie Different 
Times. 

Til,'.- .It ten, Is C-'lU-iic Xitwhcr of hist itnlions 

Summer 6 

Late summer 2 

June to July 1 

June to August 2 

July 1 

July to August 1 

No training in service 10 

No reply 25 

(Summary) 

Summer term 13 

No training in service 10 

No reply 25 

SECTION 2.— INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS 
FOUND IN SECTION 1 

Tables 58 to 60 — Who Does the Training in Service? 
While there are ten states reporting no systematic training 
in service, this is not so serious a situation as might at first 
appear when the conditions creating it are brought to 
mind — viz., that in some of the states the teaching of agri- 
culture in special departments of the secondary schools is 
very new, and because of this there are few or no such 
teachers ; that on account of the war the number of teachers 
in service has been materially reduced in those states for- 
merly having many; that because of training in service be- 
ing one of the most recent and advanced forms of teacher- 
training work, some institutions, while moving in that di- 
rection, as shown by replies to the questionary (Appendix 
B, Table Fl), had not yet attained to this stage of develop- 
ment at the time of answering the questionary. 

Table 58 contains, however, some very convincing facts 
regarding the constructive activities of the land-grant col- 
leges in training agriculture teachers in service. From the 
number of land-grant institutions whose faculty members 
participate in the training of the special teachers of agri- 
culture after these teachers have gone from the institution 
and have entered upon the regular work of a teacher, it is 
plain that most of the land-grant institutions are awake to 
the necessity of continuing the training of these persons 
after they have entered the field of actual teaching. 



120 The PfcparatioH of 

The extent to which the faculty members of the land- 
grant colleges are engaged by the state boards to act as 
state supervisors, combined with the extent to which the 
members of the faculties of the land-grant colleges cooper- 
ate with the members of the state supervisory staff in con- 
ducting the training of agricultural teachers in service, give 
evidence of an agreement as to needs and of a spirit of co- 
operation as to means that are sources of great strength to 
the land-grant colleges in their task of properly training 
special teachers of agriculture. 

That this cooperation is a source of strength is apparent 
from the manner in which the parties to the cooperation are 
working out the plans for teacher training on the basis of 
fundamental principles that will tend to avoid friction and 
misunderstandings and that will utilize to the greatest ad- 
vantage the elements of strength possessed by both the state 
departments and the land-grant colleges. 

That the state departments having charge of the supervi- 
sion of agriculture in the secondary schools have great confi- 
dence in the value of the land-grant college faculties as train- 
ers of teachers in service is evidenced by their asking them in 
twenty-one states to extend their training in service beyond 
the following up of their own graduates and to assist in 
service those special teachers of agriculture who were pre- 
pared in other institutions than their own, as appears in 
Table 60. 

A superficial consideration might lead one to the conclu- 
sion that the land-grant colleges were exceeding their juris- 
diction when they extended this training in service to those 
agricultui'al teachers whom they had not trained previous 
to their entering service in the state. This position might 
be tenable if the training in service were considered to be 
merely an unpaid balance due the teacher at the time he left 
the land-grant institution which balance had not been paid 
for lack at the time of the right kind of funds ; but when 
training of agricultural teachers in service is based upon 
the sane, sound principle that it is a duty which they owe 
to their several states and which they are especially fitted 
to perform, it is plain that the land-grant colleges are 
functioning properly in this field of teacher training. 

All these facts seem to indicate clearly that the land- 
grant colleges are, as a class, active in the training of spe- 
cial teachers of agriculture while they are in service. 

Tables 61, 62, and 63 — T)-ai)ii)t(j by Visits: How Often 
and Hoir Long. That visits are one of the most utilized 
means of training in service is plainly seen in Table 61, 



Teachers of Agriculture 121 

wherein it appears that all of the states reporting teacher 
training use this form of activity. A reference to later ta- 
bles shows that no other means is more largely used. (Ta- 
bles 71 to 74.) That there is no standard number of visits 
to be made each year is not surprising, since the conditions, 
such as numbers of schools, distances, and numbers of other 
forms of training, such as conferences and visits to other 
schools, may make a fixed standard undesirable. 

The great latitude each state reporting allows itself re- 
garding the length of visits, as shown in Table 63, gives 
striking evidence of one thing — viz., that the itinerant fac- 
ulty member realizes that he is not an "inspector" nor a 
"visitor," but a real teacher trainer, and that his stay is to 
be determined, not by the conventionalities nor by the num- 
ber of visits to be measured off per week or per month, but 
by the needs of the situation in that particular school at 
that particular time, and that it is his duty to remain long 
enough to render the service required. 

Table 64 — Character of Help Gireii. In the summary of 
this table it is seen that the help given, when specifically 
stated, emphasizes the two principal features of the work 
of the special teacher of agriculture — viz., teaching and 
administering. If the "materials and equipment" item 
were prorated between teaching and administration, as is 
probably justifiable, the specifically stated aids would be, 
respectively, 70 per cent to teaching and 30 per cent to ad- 
ministration. 

For training in service, a teacher of academic subject- 
matter to place so large an emphasis upon the administra- 
tive features would be impossible to justify; but a distri- 
bution of 70 per cent to 30 per cent between the teaching 
and administration activities of the special teacher of agri- 
culture is probably justifiable on the grounds of the char- 
acter of his duties. Being a practical — and, in most in- 
stances, a vocational — subject, dealing with the dominant 
industry of all nonurban communities, its extra-classroom 
activities probably exceed those of any other secondary 
subject. The amount of administrative responsibilities of 
the special teacher of agriculture is very large in connection 
with the home projects of the school pupils, the home and 
school gardens of the school pupils, personal help to indi- 
vidual farmers, public meetings, such as farmers' clubs, 
contests, fairs, exhibits, associations, and similar activities. 
To be successful, the special teacher of agriculture must not 
only be efficient in his class methods, but he must be equally 
efficient in the administration of those features connected 
with those community activities in the management of 



122 Thr Prcparatu)}} of 

which he participates to a greater or lesser extent. When 
to this is added the fact that during his student and prac- 
tice teaching days he has been in close contact with class- 
room procedure, but that the administrative responsibilities 
of his position are relatively new to him, it seems probable 
that the land-grant college faculty members are sound in 
their procedure of placing relatively 70 per cent of their 
emphasis upon the teaching and 30 per cent upon the ad- 
ministrative duties of the special teacher of agriculture in 
their visits to his school for the purpose of training him 
in service. 

Tables 05, (Ki. (i? , cuid OS — I)istrncto)-s' Rcpoi't.':; of Visits 
to ScJiools. That the outstanding custom is for the visiting 
instructor to report after each visit appears in Table G6, 
from which it can be shown that 56 per cent of the insti- 
tutions report in this manner, though 24 per cent of those 
who report at all report monthly. 

No other system of reporting is represented by more than 
one institution. The cooperation between the land-grant 
colleges and the state departments or boards in the training 
of agricultural teachers in service is again seen in the data 
of Table 67, wherein it appears that land-grant college fac- 
ulty members make reports to state boards or officers of 
state boards in twenty-six states and to their own depart- 
ment in the land-grant college in eight states. 

The criticism, which is doubtless justifiable, against the 
land-grant colleges for not requiring the members of their 
faculties who train teachers in service to file a report with 
the agricultural education faculties of their own institutions 
may be somewhat tempered by the explanation that the 
land-grant college has the man who did the visiting, and in 
many states he is the only member of the department of 
agricultural education, and would have no one else to whom 
to report. 

While this may modify somewhat the severity of the crit- 
icism, it should not be allowed to remove it altogether. 
There are two large purposes in having the members of the 
faculties of the departments of agricultural education in 
the land-grant colleges train the men who are in the serv- 
ice — viz., to improve the efficiency of the teacher who has 
gone from the preparing institution and who is now in serv- 
ice, and to enable the land-grant colleges to give better prep- 
aration to future prospective special teachers of agriculture 
before they enter upon actual service. 

Provided the faculty member who visits the teachers to 
train them while in service always remains with his insti- 
tution, is always at hand to state the conditions that he 



Teachers of Agriculture 123 

found at each place visited, and provided he never forgets 
any of the details, reports to the department of agricultural 
education could be dispensed with ; but since these condi- 
tions cannot be even approximately realized, every visit of 
such a faculty member to a teacher in service for the pur- 
pose of training should be reported to the land-grant col- 
lege in a form to be available for reference. 

The character of the items contained in the reports which 
the land-grant college instructor makes of his visits to the 
teacher who is in service may be seen from the data con- 
densed and expressed in Table 68. The various items indi- 
cate that the report is intended to furnish a record of two 
kinds of information — viz., the conditions actually prevail- 
ing at the school and what the faculty member recom- 
mended or suggested to the local authorities — probably 
largely to the teacher of agriculture. From the original 
replies it might also be inferred, though not with any cer- 
tainty of correctness, that the reports contained recommen- 
dations and suggestions to the parties receiving the report 
as to what such parties should do. . 

The replies contain little evidence that there is any gen- 
eral agreement as to the particular items to be included in 
the report, though this was not specifically asked for in the 
questionary. 

From these tables it seems that, excepting for the failure 
to report more generally to the land-grant colleges the re- 
sults of visits, the training in service given to the special 
teacher of agriculture by the members of the teacher train- 
ing faculties of the land-grant colleges in general through 
the medium of visits to his school give evidence of practi- 
cability, and, considering the brief period of trial, promise 
of even greater efficiency. 

Tables 69 and 70 — Reports of Teachers in Service to In- 
structor in Land-Grant College. From these tables it is 
clear that while eleven institutions seem to have some form 
of reporting by the teacher in service, the irregularity of 
time and the dissimilarity of content of reports lead to the 
conclusion that as yet this does not constitute an impor- 
tant factor in the activities of the land-grant colleges in 
their work of training in service the special teacher of ag- 
riculture. 

The same general conclusion is reached regarding the 
use of correspondence courses and reading courses from 
the facts shown in the paragraph regarding correspondence 
courses and in Table 71. 

Table 72 — Conferences for. Training in Service. The 
fact that in all states where training in service is in oper- 



124 TJh P)-eparatio)i of 

ation, conferences — general, group, or both — are held, is 
gratifying, as it confirms the belief that the land-grant col- 
leges have greater faith in the success of those forms of 
teacher training in which the trainer and the one to be 
trained meet face to face than in any form of teacher train- 
ing hi absentia, such as the use of correspondence courses, 
reading courses, or reports made to the trainer by the one 
being trained. The latter class of methods of procedure 
has a justifiable place in education, and, under some cir- 
cumstances, particularly with content, courses, may ap- 
proach in value courses taken in the presence of the instruc- 
tor ; yet it does not lend itself very successfully to procedure 
where the elements of human personalities and local con- 
ditions are as important as they are in the teaching and 
community work of the special teacher of agriculture. 

Table T-1 — Visitivg Other Schooh. Further evidence of 
the fact that the land-grant colleges are looking to the util- 
ization of ocular, concrete methods of improving teachers 
of agriculture in service is shown in Table 73, wherein it 
appears that nine institutions are following the plan of tak- 
ing special teachers of agriculture under the guidance of a 
faculty member to observe the work of another instructor 
in his own school. The system is not new, as it has been 
used by public-school authorities for many years sporad- 
ically and spasmodically ; but it is here becoming a part of 
a system used by a teacher-training institution in the train- 
ing of its constituency who are in service, and, as such, in- 
dicates a trend in the right direction of the land-grant col- 
leges in their plans for training in service the special 
teacher in agriculture. 

Tables 75 and 76—Teaeher i}i Sei'rice Atteudhig College. 
That many of the land-grant colleges are rendering distinct 
aid to the teachers of agriculture who are in service by in- 
struction at the college of agriculture is shown in Tables 75 
and 76. While the requirement of attendance is probably 
made and enforced by other authorities, the land-grant col- 
leges are furnishing the training in these states. The land- 
grant colleges probably offer this same kind of collegiate 
summer school to men in service in many other states, 
though the attendance of the special teachers of agriculture 
in those states may be optional. 

That this training is more or less intensive is shown by 
the training periods not being over six weeks in length, and 
that it is more than a conference is shown by the fact that 
none of the periods are less than two weeks in length, while 
85 per cent of them are four weeks or over. 

This length of time gives opportunity to strengihen 



Teachers of Agriculture 125 

weaknesses in subject-matter, teaching procedure, and ad- 
ministrative procedure; to become familiar with means of 
obtaining future assistance from the agricultural college, 
the experiment station, the extension service, and the de- 
partment of agricultural education ; to obtain a new orien- 
tation based on experience on the part of former students ; 
and to secure a proper adaptation to local agricultural and 
educational conditions in the state on the part of those orig- 
inally prepared elsewhere. 

That the states are agreed in requiring this college at- 
tendance to be in the summer is evidence that conditions 
of absence from the local school is an important determining 
factor, supported, no doubt, by the lax condition of com- 
munity activities at that time and the special attention 
which land-grant colleges are able to give to the training 
of these men at that time. 

SECTION 3.— CONCLUSIONS DEDUCED FROM 
SECTIONS 1 AND 2 

The facts of Section 1 and the interpretation placed upon 
them in Section 2 seem to justify the following conclusions 
regarding the work of the land-grant colleges in the train- 
ing in service of the special teachers of agriculture: 

1. That the land-grant institutions, as a class, appreciate 
the necessity of continuing the training of the special 
teacher of agriculture after he has entered upon service. 

2. That the cooperation of the land-grant colleges and the 
state departments or boards of education in the training of 
teachers in service is a means of increasing the efficiency of 
the land-grant colleges in their work of preparing special 
teachers of agriculture, not only as it relates to those in 
service, but also as it relates to those who are undergoing 
preparation previous to entering upon service. 

3. That the land-grant colleges are recognizing their re- 
sponsibility for training in service the special agricultural 
teachers of the states, whether or not those teachers were 
originally prepared by the land-grant institution of that 
state. 

4. That the land-grant colleges which train teachers in 
service are unanimous in using personal visits of the mem- 
ber of the teacher training faculty of the land-grant col- 
lege to the special teacher of agriculture in the latter's own 
school as a means of training in service. 

5. That the number of visits made to any one school with- 
in a definite period has not been fixed by the land-grant col- 
leges, nor is there a tendency toward uniformity in that re- 
gard. 



126 TJic P)-(pa ration of 

G. Thai in the length of a visit to the teacher in service 
the land-g-rant institutions are not in agreement upon any 
definite time, but seem to adjust the length of stay to the 
needs of the teacher to be trained. 

7. That in placing the largest amount of emphasis during 
their visits to the teacher in service upon the work of teach- 
ing and the next largest upon administration, the land- 
grant colleges are adapting their training to the needs of 
the teacher and his community so far as it can be meas- 
ured by the topics to which training in service has been de- 
voted. 

8. That in keeping the state authorities informed by re- 
ports of the situation in the agricultural departments of 
the schools they visit and of what the teacher trainer did at 
the place of visit, the land-grant college faculty members 
are strengthening their teacher-training work; but to the 
degree in which they fail to file reports with the land-grant 
colleges, they are retarding the efficient development of the 
training by the land-grant college, not only of those teachers 
who are in service, but also of those to whom the institution 
will in future give preparation previous to their entering 
into service. 

9. That the unanimity with which the land-grant colleges 
utilize conferences in addition to personal visits to the 
teachers separately and visits with the teachers to another 
teacher at the latter's own school, indicates the appreciation 
the land-grant colleges have of their responsibility for 
properly training the teachers in service, and also their 
appreciation of the value of ocular, concrete procedure in 
training teachers in classroom and community methods. 

10. That the land-grant colleges are paying little atten- 
tion to correspondence courses, reading courses, and other 
ill absoitia methods of training teachers in service. 

11. That the land-grant colleges are emphasizing espe- 
cially the training of the teacher in service by means of the 
personal contact of the faculty members of the land-grant 
college with the teacher in service through working with 
him in his own school, studying with him other agricultural 
departments in secondary schools and teaching him at the 
land-grant colleges during summer sessions. 

12. That because of special teachers of agriculture who 
were prepared in one state being so frequently found teach- 
ing in a different state in which they are trained in service 
by a different land-grant college, the preparation of spe- 
cial teachers of agriculture should be, and is, a function in 
which the federal government participates. 

13. That the land-grant colleges as the one class of 
teacher-training institutions supported and controlled joint- 



Teachers of AfjricultHre \27 

ly by the federal government and the several states, are 
for that reason especially adapted to the training in service 
of the special teacher of agriculture. 

These conclusions seem to warrant the general conclu- 
sion regarding training in service: 

14. That the land-grant colleges, because of their federal 
and state relationships, are especialy adapted to the train- 
ing m service of the special teacher of agriculture, and, as 
a class, are moving in the right direction in this work, and, 
considering the conditions under which they have labored, 
particularly the short period devoted to the evolution of 
this feature of teacher training, have demonstrated their 
adaptation to the performance of this function. 



CHAPTER VIII 

DISCUSSION OF CONCLUSIONS. 

"How the land-grant colleges of the United States are 
preparing special teachers of agriculture" is a question 
that may be interpreted to mean either of two things — viz., 
an inquiry into the facts of procedure followed by the land- 
grant colleges in the process of preparing special teachers 
of agriculture, or an inquiry into the adaptability of these 
institutions to the duty of preparing special teachers of 
agriculture. 

To the former interpretation the answer would be a bare 
statement of what the land-grant colleges are doing in the 
preparation of special teachers of agriculture; to the lat- 
ter interpretation the answer would be such an evaluation 
of the character of these institutions and of their efficiency 
in the preparation of this class of teachers as would lead to 
qualitative conclusions regarding their adaptability, as a 
class, to the performance of this important function. 

This dissertation has endeavored to seek a reply to both 
interpretations of this question. The measure to which it 
has succeeded in furnishing the answer to the first inter- 
pretation may be found by an examination of the first sec- 
tion of each of Chapters 11 to VII, inclusive, since in those 
will be found the facts believed to be the most significant 
regarding the processes of training the special teachers of 
agriculture in the land-grant colleges obtained from de- 
pendable sources most competent to furnish the information 
desired. 

The degree to which this dissertation has succeeded in 
furnishing the reply to the second interpretation of the 
question may be judged by a consideration of Chapter I 
and the second and third sections of Chapters II to VII, 
inclusive. In Chapter I is found a brief account of the ori- 
gin of the land-grant colleges, which may furnish a basis 
for determining their character ; and in the second section 
of each of Chapters II to VII an effort has been made to dis- 
cover the significance of the facts of procedure as a meas- 
ure of the adaptation of these institutions to the function 
of preparing special teachers of agriculture; and in the 
third section of each chapter the important facts and meas- 
ures of adaptation are stated in more condensed form. 

Since an attempt to answer definitely the original inquiry 
has been made in the conclusions which are found briefly 
stated at the close of each of the preceding chapters, it is 
not deemed necessary to repeat those answers here. How- 



Teachers of AgrieiilfHre 129 

ever, as the conclusions at the close of each chapter are con- 
fined to the subject alone to which that particular chapter 
is devoted, it may be well, even at the risk of a degree of 
repetition, to emphasize some of the larger features brought 
out by the investigation, particularly those that are af- 
fected by the facts of more than one chapter. In doing this, 
attention should be directed first to some characteristics of 
the land-grant institutions that affect their adaptability 
to the preparation of this particular class of teachers. 

The most fundamental and far-reaching characteristics 
are those which are due to these institutions being sup- 
ported and controlled jointly by the federal government and 
the several states. Only by this cooperative support and 
control could have been developed so effective a group of 
colleges whose distinguishing characteristics are so out- 
standing. 

That the growth, development, and success of these insti- 
tutions of higher learning, the only group established upon 
this joint federal-state basis in the United States, have 
proved satisfactory to the American people, is amply dem- 
onstrated by the growing tendency to increase the number 
of systems whereby the federal government and the several 
states may cooperate in improving education, as evidenced 
by the recent passage of the Smith-Lever Act and the 
Smith-Hughes Act by the United States Congress and the 
prompt acceptance of the provisions of both by the legisla- 
tures of the several states. 

A further evidence that the land-grant institutions have 
functioned satisfactorily to the people of the United States 
in their fifty-seven years of existence is that all congres- 
sional legislation subsequent to the Morril Acts and all now 
pending has been based upon the fundamental principles 
established in the early Acts creating the land-grant col- 
leges and providing for their maintenance and control. 

Perhaps the highest compliment that can be paid to the 
success of the land-grant colleges in popularizing in the 
United States the joint support and control of education 
by the federal government and the several states is that 
their fifty-seven years of operation have seen public opinion 
turn from the point of view that education is a function 
to be confined to the several states, and local communities 
to the point of view that education is a function in which 
the federal government, the states, and the local communi- 
ties are all interested and for the support and control of 
which they are jointly responsible. That this cooperative 
point of view is that of the present time is evident from 



]M) The Pr( jxiratioii of 

the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act relating to vocational 
education. 

That public sentiment seems about to give its sanction to 
the extension of this joint federal-state support and control 
to education in general is patent from the progress made 
by the Smith-Towner bill in the recent Congress and the 
introduction of six l)ills of similar import to the present 
special session of Congress — viz., H. R. 7 (Towner), 1204 
(Bankhead), 2028 (Raker), S. 15 (Smith), S. 12 (Smith). 
S. 1017 (Smith). (School Life, Vol. Ill, No. 1; Julv 1. 
1919; p. 14.) 

That the characteristics of the land-grant colleges which 
have enabled them to perform their functions to so high a 
degree of public satisfaction are of a nature that ought to 
enable them to train special teachers of agriculture with the 
same degree of success may perhaps be made clearer by a 
brief enumeration of those characteristics. 

The generous financial support of both the federal gov- 
ernment and the several state legislatures has made possi- 
ble buildings, equipment, and men and women in sufficient 
quantity and number and of adapted (luality, as shown in 
Chapter I. The presence of a large student body and fac- 
ulty body has made specialization possible. The practical 
character of the education and experience of the personnel 
of colleges of agriculture indicates that the results of their 
labors will be both scientific and practical. 

The existence of highly endowed experiment stations for 
thirty-two years in connection with the land-grant colleges 
has developed a scientific point of view and accumulated a 
body of scientific data invaluable to the teacher and to the 
practical farmer. 

The creation of an extensive extension service through 
the land-grant colleges has developed a mutually helpful 
cooperation, which brings to the farmer the most approved 
practical processes based upon scientific foundations, and 
brings to the teacher and experimenter the vitalizing con- 
tact with the world of rural realities. 

The Smith-Hughes law develops a mutual helpfulness and 
interdependence on the part of the land-grant colleges re- 
sponsible for the improvement of agriculture and rural con- 
ditions, and the state departments of education responsi- 
ble for public education in the state which are mutually 
l)eneficial. 

To all of these, which in all human probaljility could not 
have attained their present degree of eflfectiveness under 
any other circumstances than joint federal and state au- 
thority, may be added a factor dependent wholly upon this 



Teachers of A</riei(ltNre \M 

joint authority — namely, the similarity of })lans and pro- 
cedure in the several states due to the participation of the 
federal government in the control of the land-grant colleges. 

That there is need for similarity of plans in the prepa- 
ration of special teachers of agriculture is evident from the 
fact that in the state of Minnesota in the year 1913 the 
special teachers of agriculture in the high schools of that 
state had received their collegiate training for this service 
in eighteen different states. (Unpublished MSS. in United 
States Bureau of Education.) 

Only institutions whose plans are brought into harmony 
through some such central influence as the federal govern- 
ment can hope to properly prepare a body of teachers who 
are to serve in states so far removed from the states in 
which many of them were prepared. This is particularly 
true when the teacher-training institutions are distributed 
throughout the forty-eight states of the Union. 

Since adequate physical equipment for agriculture; a 
faculty and student personnel practically and scientifically 
acquainted with agriculture; a high degree of specializa- 
tion ; familiarity with the procedure and results of experi- 
ment stations, extension activities, and cooperation with 
state departments of education ; and similarity of prepara- 
tion in the several states, are essential to the proper prep- 
aration of special teachers of agriculture; and since the 
land-grant institutions are the only class of institutions in 
the United States enjoying all of the above-stated advan- 
tages through joint state and federal support and control, 
it seems plain that in their fundamental characteristics 
they are preeminently adapted to the efficient training of 
special teachers of agriculture. 

The actuality of performing a certain function is not 
necessarily a concomitant of the potentiality for the per- 
formance of that function. 

Before we can ascribe to the land-grant colleges a high 
degree of efficiency in the preparation of special teachers of 
agriculture we must know what use they have made of the 
favorable characteristics with which they have been en- 
dowed. 

Chapters II to VII, inclusive, endeavor to supply this 
knowledge. One needs but examine the conclusions in Part 
III of each of these chapters to find what seems to be the 
character of the accomplishments of the land-grant colleges 
in this field. 

One of the noticeable characteristics as indicated by what 
the land-grant colleges have done is that they have devel- 
oped a keen appreciation of the great importance of the 



\M TJic Preparation of 

work of preparing these special teachers. Despite the ob- 
jections of those who thought it unnecessary to study how 
to teach and of those who said teaching agriculture outside 
of college was a fad and would soon pass away and of those 
who declared that studying such a subject as agriculture 
was not becoming "educated," the land-grant colleges pro- 
ceeded to place their stamp of high approval upon the move- 
ment by establishing special departments for the prepara- 
tion of special teachers of agriculture, naming them agri- 
cultural education, giving them administrative rank equal 
to the most important divisions of the institution, giving 
their faculty members high professional rank and almost 
complete control over all the features of the work essential 
in the proper preparation of teachers, such as choice of cur- 
riculum, approval of students, conduct of practice teaching, 
training in service, and teaching the more important of the 
courses in education. 

Whether such generous opportunity to function would 
have been accorded to a new movement by any other class 
of higher educational institution than one devoted to a 
combination of the practical and the scientific is open to 
(juestion. 

That this cordial and open-minded attitude of the land- 
grant institutions has been a factor in the success attending 
their efforts to train si)ecial teachers of agriculture in the 
past and that it presages opportunity for a continuation of 
that success in the future seems reasonably certain. 

Another noticeable feature which seems almost a corol- 
lary to the foregoing is that the land-grant colleges have 
placed at the disposal of those responsil/le for teacher train- 
ing their faculties, equipment (both general and agricultu- 
ral), experiment stations, extension faculties, practice 
schools, and summer schools. And this is no minor fea- 
ture when it is realized that experiment stations, agricultu- 
ral extension systems, special animal industry and crop in- 
dustry equipment, supported generously by federal and 
state funds, constitute a combination of facilities found in 
no other class of institutions in the United States, and yet 
essential to the proper preparation of superior special teach- 
ers of agriculture in large numbers. 

A third noteworthy feature is the high plane upon which 
the teacher-training work has been placed, as indicated by 
the limitations placed upon entrance to it. The entrance 
requirements to the most numerous class of teacher-training 
schools vary from that of those required by the first-class 
colleges to that of those required by some second-class high 
schools. The land-grant colleges, as a class (over 95 per 



TeacJicrs of Af/ricNltiire l.^o 

cent of them) have the same entrance requirements as the 
standard colleges of the United States, so far as number of 
units is concerned, and require the same for those students 
who are expecting to prepare for teaching as for other 
students. In addition to this, most of the land-grant col- 
leges require two years of practical farm experience, which 
does not appear to be a requirement of any other class of in- 
stitutions. 

Another noticeable characteristic of the work of the land- 
grant colleges in the preparation of the special teacher of 
agriculture is the careful efforts made to give him during 
his college career sound and well-balanced schooling in ag- 
riculture, science, and education ; to reserve his choice of 
specialization until his maturity, training, and experience 
enable him to choose wisely, and yet to make his choice suf- 
ficiently early to leave plenty of time for special preparation 
for his chosen work. In this way they have avoided the 
dangerous extremes of easy entrance, one-sided curriculum, 
and lack of special professional preparation so likely to 
mark institutions of applied science. 

Not only in the character of the entrance requirements 
and the college curriculum, but also in other procedui-es, 
the extreme practicality of the land-grant college in pre- 
paring special teachers of agriculture is observable. In 
practice teaching students observe and teach mainly the 
same kinds of students they will find later in regular teach- 
ing; they teach the same subjects they will be required to 
teach in regular teaching; they receive criticism from the 
critic teacher and also from their fellow practice teachers ; 
they watch expert teachers teach (largely agriculture) ; 
they cannot enter upon practice teaching until well through 
their course and until they have become intelligent observ- 
ers of superior teaching. In many of these regards the 
land-grant colleges exceed in their standards teacher-train- 
ing institutions in general in the United States. The same 
characteristic of practicality is seen in their training of 
teachers in service. There they discriminate between those 
methods that are valuable, but difficult, and those that are 
easy, but less valuable ; and they put into operation the 
former. In this practical work of training the teacher in 
service they exhibit evidence of devotion to the needs of 
society rather than to those of persons formerly connected 
with their own individual institutions by training in serv- 
ice the teacher who needs it, regardless of whether or not 
he was educated in the institution with which they are con- 
nected. 



Another (iisliiiel, impression one ol)lains from the study 
is that, in addition to the general agreement of the institu- 
tions, as a chiss, upon many important features, there are 
some other desirable features in which a few institutions 
have made outstanding progress. These features are most 
often found in the newer fields of practice teaching and 
training in service. Some of these features are highly de- 
veloped in one institution and some in another. In the few 
institutions possessing these features no one institution has 
a monopoly of all of them. Sometimes the commendable 
pioneering is found in one part of the United States and 
sometimes in another. 

From this study of the characteristics of the land-grant 
colleges and of the use they have made of their facilities 
and opportunities in the preparation of special teachers of 
agriculture, one is deeply impressed with their eminent 
adaptability and their practical efficiency in performing this 
function for the people of the United States. 

While it has not been the purpose at any time during the 
progress of this investigation to propose universal ideals for 
future attainment, but rather to search out the facts and 
interpret their significance, yet the hoj^e is entertained that 
from the findings herein each land-grant Institution may be 
able to select something which, when properly applied to 
local conditions, will serve to improve the quality of the 
work of that institution in the preparation of special teach- 
ers of agriculture, and by that means to raise the standards 
of this important service in all the land-grant institutions 
in the United States. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Association of the Colleges and Secondary Schools of the Southern 
States, Proceedings. 

Barrows, H. P., letter, September 4, 1918. 

Bowers, J. H., questionary reply to G. M. Wilson. 

Blackmar, F. W., History of Federal Aid to Higher Education. 

Federal Board for Vocational Education, Bulletin i;5. 

Fedei'al Board for Vocational Education, Bulletin 27. 

Federal Board for Vocational Education, Second Annual Report. 

Catalogs, Land-Grant Institutions. 

Cook, Leon E., letter, February 28, 1919. 

Crosby, Dick J., Progress in Agricultural Education, 1916. 

Ci'osby, Dick J., Progress in Agricultural Education, 1909. 

Crosby, Dick J., Report, Office of Experiment Station, United States 
Department of Agriculture, 1906. 

Crosby, Dick J., Report, Office of Experiment Station, United States 
Department of Agriculture, 1907. 

Crosby, Dick J., Report, Office of Experiment Station, United States 
Department of Agriculture, 1908. 

Crosby, Dick J., Report, Office of Experiment Station, United States 
Department of Agriculture, 1910. 

Griffin, F. L., letter, June 12, 1919. 

Jarvis, C. D., United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 29. 

Jenks, F. B., letter, September 17, 1918. 

Kandel, L L., Federal Aid for Vocational Education. 

Lusk, W. F., letter, November 26, 1918. 

Mead, A. R., Eighteenth Year Book, National Society for Study of 
Education. 

National Education Association, Commission on Reorganization of 
Secondary Education, Report of Committee on Agriculture. 

National Education Association, Proceedings, 1913. 

North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Pro- 
ceedings. 

Office of Experiment Stations, United States Department of Agri- 
culture, Annual Report, 1911. 

Office of Experiment Stations, United States Department of Agricul- 
ture, Circular No. 118. 

Plans for Training Special Teachers of Agriculture, University of 
Minnesota. 

Plans for Training Teachers of Vocational Agriculture, Cornell Uni- 
versity, New York. 

Pedagogical Seminary, September, 1916. 

Questionary, questions issued by A. V. Storm to Land-Gi"ant Institu- 
tions (for whites) in Continental United States in March, 1919. 

Questionary, alphabetic tabulation of answers to above from forty- 
four states on file in Library, Peabody College, Nashville, Tenn., 
and in Library, University Farm, St. Paul, Minn., as follow.s — viz.: 

Tables Al, 2, and 3. 

Tables Bl, 2, 3. and 4. 

Table C. 

Table D. 

Tables El, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7. 8. and 9 

Tables Fl, 2, 3, and 4. 

Stewart, W. F., letter, March 3, 1919. 
True, A. C, Progress in Agricultural Education, IDOf). 
True, A. C, Annual Report, Office Experiment Station, United States 
Department of .'Agriculture, 1903. 



1.^16 



Tlic P)'epa)rifi()ii of 



United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 
United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 
United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 
United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1918, No. 
United States Bureau of 
Vol. I. 



Education, Commissioner's 

Education, Commissioner's 

Education, Commissioner's 

Education, Commissioner's 

Education, Conmiissioner's 

Education, Commissioner's 

Education, Commissioner's 



United States Bureau of 

Vol. I. 
United States Bureau of 

Vol. II. 
United States Bureau of 

Vol. II. 
United States Bureau of 

Vol. I. 
United States Bureau of 

Vol. II. 
United States Bureau of 

Vol. I. 
United States Bureau of Education, Commissioner's 

Vol. II. 
United States Bureau of Education, Commissioner's 

Vol. I. 
United States Bureau of Education, Commissioner's 

Vol. II. 
United States Bureau of Education, Commissioner's 

Vol. I. 
United States Bureau of Education, Commissioner's 

Vol. II. 
United States Bureau of Education, Commissioner's 

Vol. I. 
United States Bureau of Education, Conmiissioner's 

Vol. II. 
United States Bureau of Education, Commissioner's 

Vol. II. 
United States Department of Agriculture Year Book, 1 
United States Statutes at Large, 12. 
United States Statutes at Large, 2(). 
Works, G. A., (juestionary reply to G. M. Wilson. 



13. 
28. 
29. 
41. 
Report, 


1902 


Report, 


190(3 


Report, 


190G 


Report, 


1907 


Report, 


1908 


Report, 


1908 


Report, 


1910 


Report, 


1910 


Report, 


1911 


Report, 


1911 


Report, 


1912 


Report, 


1912 


Report, 


191:! 


Report, 


1913 


Report, 


1914 


894. 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 782 686 6 



